Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 08:40:23 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Guns  (Read 19823 times)
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
July 22, 2012, 05:03:32 PM
 #181

Here's the graph... Maybe now you can see what I meant when I said "the numbers are all over the place":

More permissive<----------------------------------------------------->Less permissive

There's a trend... vaguely. But the highest data point is in the middle, and the least permissive has more gun deaths than the third most permissive, and the 9th. And all of the other top 5 least permissive states. Sure, I could slice and dice that data to show pretty much any result I wanted. But taken together, it doesn't show a very clear correlation. Especially when you consider that the data includes all gun deaths, accidental, violent, and suicide. I'd hardly call that conclusive.

Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:
Quote
"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

The data just doesn't appear to be "all over the place" as you see it.

Do you know how photography works? Please follow along. It's an excellent example of data sampling. The smaller the pixel on the sensor, and the less time the shutter is open, the more noise you get in the image. This is why small sensor cameras set at high ISO and shooting during nighttime will create a noisy image. Sampling theory explains all this. The image is there, but what happens is a reduction in the number of photons collected per pixel. Less photons per pixel will result in what appears to be randomness when you look at a small portion of the image - i.e. just a few pixels. But when you step back, a picture emerges.

Very clearly, when you view the data as a whole, a picture emerges. Mathematically, this was demonstrated when a correlation coefficient of 0.7 resulted.

Why don't you apply a running average to the data or perform some regression analysis on the data?
1481402423
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402423

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402423
Reply with quote  #2

1481402423
Report to moderator
1481402423
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402423

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402423
Reply with quote  #2

1481402423
Report to moderator
1481402423
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402423

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402423
Reply with quote  #2

1481402423
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481402423
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402423

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402423
Reply with quote  #2

1481402423
Report to moderator
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2012, 05:19:05 PM
 #182

Very clearly, when you view the data as a whole, a picture emerges. Mathematically, this was demonstrated when a correlation coefficient of 0.7 resulted.
There's a trend... vaguely.

But taken together, it doesn't show a very clear correlation. Especially when you consider that the data includes all gun deaths, accidental, violent, and suicide. I'd hardly call that conclusive.

You feel like addressing this part?

Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:
Quote
"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
July 22, 2012, 05:24:18 PM
 #183

Very clearly, when you view the data as a whole, a picture emerges. Mathematically, this was demonstrated when a correlation coefficient of 0.7 resulted.
There's a trend... vaguely.

But taken together, it doesn't show a very clear correlation. Especially when you consider that the data includes all gun deaths, accidental, violent, and suicide. I'd hardly call that conclusive.

You feel like addressing this part?

I'll even go a step further: accidental, violent, suicide, and self defense.

I don't have any desire to hide data, or mislead, as demonstrated by my statement above. Furthermore, if data existed to the left of the chart, assuming even more permissive gun laws existed (such as in NAP), we might even see the formation of a bell curve.

The point is, data is data. The data does show a significant downward trend and does correlate. You can't argue that. What you can do is argue the underlying interpretation of it.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2012, 05:33:04 PM
 #184

Oops. I'll take credit for that fuck-up. I should have been clearer that the following portion is what I wanted you to address, not the first part. The first part is done. .698 correlation, when you include all gun deaths, whether accidental, suicide, or as a result of violence (both in defense and as a result of attack, no less!), is simply not strong enough to show that restricting guns will reduce gun violence. Too much noise in the data, coming from all of those other deaths.

Address this, please:
Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:
Quote
"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
July 22, 2012, 05:41:17 PM
 #185

Oops. I'll take credit for that fuck-up. I should have been clearer that the following portion is what I wanted you to address, not the first part. The first part is done. .698 correlation, when you include all gun deaths, whether accidental, suicide, or as a result of violence (both in defense and as a result of attack, no less!), is simply not strong enough to show that restricting guns will reduce gun violence. Too much noise in the data, coming from all of those other deaths.

Address this, please:
Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:
Quote
"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

I don't feel inclined to bother until you accept that the correlation is strong (as per the wikipedia article, which states that anything above 0.5 is strong), and that the trend is clear despite noise. If you need to plot a running average or perform regression analysis to demonstrate this to yourself, then by all means, do so.

If you can't concede a point based upon statistics because it disagrees with your ideology, then why should I expend effort in continuing the discussion in the direction you would prefer it to go. I believe my last post was more than fair with regard to discussion.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2012, 05:50:03 PM
 #186

I don't feel inclined to bother until you accept that the correlation is strong (as per the wikipedia article, which states that anything above 0.5 is strong), and that the trend is clear despite noise. If you need to plot a running average or perform regression analysis to demonstrate this to yourself, then by all means, do so.

If you can't concede a point based upon statistics because it disagrees with your ideology, then why should I expend effort in continuing the discussion in the direction you would prefer it to go. I believe my last post was more than fair with regard to discussion.

Fucking troll.
"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. "

.698 correlation, when you are looking at all gun deaths means nothing. So what if there are fewer gun suicides? That just means there are more pills or bathtub suicides. Find me data on gun crime. Then, if that data shows even a .5 correlation, I will eat my fucking hat.

Respond to the quote from the article you linked to, at the very least.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
July 22, 2012, 05:56:35 PM
 #187

I don't feel inclined to bother until you accept that the correlation is strong (as per the wikipedia article, which states that anything above 0.5 is strong), and that the trend is clear despite noise. If you need to plot a running average or perform regression analysis to demonstrate this to yourself, then by all means, do so.

If you can't concede a point based upon statistics because it disagrees with your ideology, then why should I expend effort in continuing the discussion in the direction you would prefer it to go. I believe my last post was more than fair with regard to discussion.

Fucking troll.
"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. "

.698 correlation, when you are looking at all gun deaths means nothing. So what if there are fewer gun suicides? That just means there are more pills or bathtub suicides. Find me data on gun crime. Then, if that data shows even a .5 correlation, I will eat my fucking hat.

Respond to the quote from the article you linked to, at the very least.

It's rather sad that you can't separate the concept of correlation from the interpretation of it. We can't move on until you understand the difference. I suggest you go focus on your Colorado conspiracy theory in the other thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94471.msg1046661#msg1046661 ) and reap the benefits of that fruitful exploration.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2012, 06:12:14 PM
 #188

I don't feel inclined to bother until you accept that the correlation is strong (as per the wikipedia article, which states that anything above 0.5 is strong), and that the trend is clear despite noise. If you need to plot a running average or perform regression analysis to demonstrate this to yourself, then by all means, do so.

If you can't concede a point based upon statistics because it disagrees with your ideology, then why should I expend effort in continuing the discussion in the direction you would prefer it to go. I believe my last post was more than fair with regard to discussion.

Fucking troll.
"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. "

.698 correlation, when you are looking at all gun deaths means nothing. So what if there are fewer gun suicides? That just means there are more pills or bathtub suicides. Find me data on gun crime. Then, if that data shows even a .5 correlation, I will eat my fucking hat.

Respond to the quote from the article you linked to, at the very least.

It's rather sad that you can't separate the concept of correlation from the interpretation of it. We can't move on until you understand the difference. I suggest you go focus on your Colorado conspiracy theory in the other thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94471.msg1046661#msg1046661 ) and reap the benefits of that fruitful exploration.

I could put together data that shows correlation much stronger than .69 for anything I want, just by tossing in extra factors, or taking others out. You cannot separate the correlation from the context of the data and shout "It correlates!" Of fucking course making it harder to get a gun makes it less likely that someone who wants to kill themselves has a gun available to do it. Pills are easy to get a hold of. The data is too damn noisy to call .698 "strong". I'm going to repeat my request one last time: Show me data on gun crime vs. gun law, and if it correlates, I will heartily accept that gun control laws help. But I know you won't. You won't even respond to the article you fucking linked to. Whatever. Have a nice life, fuckwad.

I'm done wasting my time with you. You are literally not worth my time. I don't know what you're trying to push, here, but I'm certain it's just more bullshit. Unless you have something productive to say, go take a flying fuck off a short pier.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
July 22, 2012, 06:14:07 PM
 #189

Dammit I found this data too late to save an interesting discussion!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2012, 06:18:51 PM
 #190

Dammit I found this data too late to save an interesting discussion!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Excellent data. They even offer it in a spreadsheet. It does not, unfortunately, include any measurement of "permissivity" of the gun laws in each state, I'll just use the rankings from the previous data.

Graph is coming, but it will take some time to get everything collated.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Taz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210



View Profile
July 22, 2012, 06:20:07 PM
 #191

Hmm.. Guess it's not over then.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2012, 07:37:48 PM
 #192

So, Here's the chart from that data...


More Permissive<------------------------------------------->Less Permissive

And, if anyone doubts me, here's the raw data that I used. You can verify it against the data Explodicle linked to. It's the same info.

The original data (That FirstAscent posted) did not have information on DC's permissivity re: gun laws, but it's widely accepted as the strictest in the country, so I placed it at "51". If someone has data that contradicts this, I'd be glad to see it, and will revise my chart. Also, a note on Florida: There was no data for firearms murders for that state, though overall that does not look to have created much of an anomaly when you consider how much greater the other two numbers are in comparison, across the board.

So, What's the correlation in that dataset, FirstAsshole?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
July 23, 2012, 01:37:11 AM
 #193


So, What's the correlation in that dataset, FirstAsshole?
Well uh... I just watched a very nice performance of the Shakespeare play "Much Ado about Nothing," so I'm cracking up whenever someone says "ass" (no seriously, the guy who played Conrade was hilarious), and I don't wish to "written down AN ASS," but if you give me the raw data of that dataset I can find the correlation coefficient for you Smiley

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2012, 01:39:58 AM
 #194


So, What's the correlation in that dataset, FirstAsshole?
Well uh... I just watched a very nice performance of the Shakespeare play "Much Ado about Nothing," so I'm cracking up whenever someone says "ass" (no seriously, the guy who played Conrade was hilarious), and I don't wish to "written down AN ASS," but if you give me the raw data of that dataset I can find the correlation coefficient for you Smiley

Ready and waiting for you. (click the words "raw data" in the sentence directly below the image in that post)

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
July 23, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
 #195


So, What's the correlation in that dataset, FirstAsshole?
Well uh... I just watched a very nice performance of the Shakespeare play "Much Ado about Nothing," so I'm cracking up whenever someone says "ass" (no seriously, the guy who played Conrade was hilarious), and I don't wish to "written down AN ASS," but if you give me the raw data of that dataset I can find the correlation coefficient for you Smiley

Ready and waiting for you. (click the words "raw data" in the sentence directly below the image in that post)
Yes, well... uh... how about something parse-able? I'm a programmer, not a Microsoft Office wizard.
Even Zamzar had nfi Tongue
Luckily this poorly-built site worked for me. I hope my hacky Notepad++ regular expression produced the correct pared-down data of the "Total Gun Crime" statistic

The result is that the data shows "only" a correlation coefficient of 0.1606

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2012, 02:18:06 AM
 #196

The result is that the data shows "only" a correlation coefficient of 0.1606

For which dataset? I can split them off for you, if you'd like.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
July 23, 2012, 02:20:13 AM
 #197

The result is that the data shows "only" a correlation coefficient of 0.1606

For which dataset? I can split them off for you, if you'd like.
For the Total Gun Crime per 100,000 pop. I should have specified that. Would you like the data for the others? RegEx is a wonderful thing; it's not a big deal if there's interest.

Oh, and what is this thread doing without a graphic from Yale?

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2012, 02:29:56 AM
 #198

The result is that the data shows "only" a correlation coefficient of 0.1606

For which dataset? I can split them off for you, if you'd like.
For the Total Gun Crime per 100,000 pop. I should have specified that. Would you like the data for the others? RegEx is a wonderful thing; it's not a big deal if there's interest.

The other numbers would be nice. To clarify, In this case, does a high (positive) coefficient mean that high x->high y, ( / ) or does it mean that high x -> low y ( \ )?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
FlipPro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
July 23, 2012, 02:34:18 AM
 #199

Bitcoin geniuses who know more than law enforcement officials, compiling their own data in an attempt to disprove the obvious. Cheesy ... the amount of ego seen in this forum is astonishing.

Do computer nerds really know EVERYTHING Huh

If you came to Bitcoin Talk it would sure seem that way...

And you guys wonder why the Internet laughs at us... Undecided

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2012, 02:35:40 AM
 #200

Bitcoin geniuses who know more than law enforcement officials, compiling their own data in an attempt to disprove the obvious. Cheesy ... the amount of ego see in this forum is astonishing.

I don't recall yanking your chain....

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!