Graph and Logic Lesson For The Day

[g5000]

FACT: A much smaller percentage of Americans own guns than in the past.

FACT: The homicide rate has plunged over the same period of decline of gun ownership.

Based on your own premise, PC, what does this prove?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gun ownership in households has declined from 55% of the population to 30% of the population over the past 40 years.

The OP says nothing about households.

It clearly says "New US Firearms"

Clean off your specs.

Now explain why you fear answering the two queries proffered.

You should have someone read and explain to you why the rebuttals above kicked the sewage out of your asinine argument.

 

[g5000]

 

[LoneLaugher]

Some political positions are based on indoctrination, and eschew logic, intellect, and experience.
I refer to Left wing positions....
...in this case....gun control

Here is an exercise in logic, based on this visual.

The essay question for today is in two parts:

1. What do the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, when compared to the number of criminal homicides, prove?

2. Based on your response to #1 above.....what has been proven with respect to Left wing dogma about gun ownership and the second amendment?



Voting 'Present' is not acceptable.

The answer to 1 is not much. There's a couple of things to note:
1. The y-axis in the two graphs are marked in a different scale. That's a red flag right there for data manipulation.
2. The two graphs seek to prove a correlation between A and B, and yet graph A as a function of time in one graph with B as a function of time in another graph. Again, that's a strong indication of data manipulation. They could have graphed A versus B or graphed A and B parametrically as a function of time.
3. The graphs also choose number of deaths as the variable instead of the murder rate, ignoring the relationship between violent crime and population density. Also a red flag that data has been cherry picked.

I'm thinking later tonight I'll see if I can't pull the data and do a linear regression of A vs B, but just looking at it I'm expecting that result to be just crap.

That said, there' s a fascinating study at Gun ownership and firearm-related deaths. - PubMed - NCBI about gun ownership and firearm related deaths. Worth a read.

Nicely done.

 

[LoneLaugher]

A normal person would decide to take a break from the forum after being so humiliated by his or her own stupidity. Something tells me that the OP won't do the normal thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some political positions are based on indoctrination, and eschew logic, intellect, and experience.
I refer to Left wing positions....
...in this case....gun control

Here is an exercise in logic, based on this visual.

The essay question for today is in two parts:

1. What do the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, when compared to the number of criminal homicides, prove?

2. Based on your response to #1 above.....what has been proven with respect to Left wing dogma about gun ownership and the second amendment?



Voting 'Present' is not acceptable.

Here's your logic lesson.

Logical Fallacy:

Post Hoc Fallacy
Explanation
The Latin phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc” means, literally, “after this therefore because of this.” The post hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it. Mere temporal succession, however, does not entail causal succession. Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it was caused by it. This fallacy is closely related to the cum hoc fallacy.


PolitcalChic's penchant for making claims devoid of any cause and effect evidence is legendary around USMB.

This thread simply adds to the legend.

 

[BULLDOG]

Gun ownership in households has declined from 55% of the population to 30% of the population over the past 40 years.

The OP says nothing about households.

It clearly says "New US Firearms"

Clean off your specs.

Now explain why you fear answering the two queries proffered.

Just because the OP doesn't include all the pertinent information doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that fewer households have lots more guns shows that your conclusion, based on partial information, is bullshit.

 

[OldLady]

Some political positions are based on indoctrination, and eschew logic, intellect, and experience.
I refer to Left wing positions....
...in this case....gun control

Here is an exercise in logic, based on this visual.

The essay question for today is in two parts:

1. What do the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, when compared to the number of criminal homicides, prove?

2. Based on your response to #1 above.....what has been proven with respect to Left wing dogma about gun ownership and the second amendment?



Voting 'Present' is not acceptable.

1. What do the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, when compared to the number of criminal homicides, prove?
It proves nothing, in itself. Not only are less households owning guns, as G-5000 points out, but a correlation doesn't prove a cause and effect relationship. There are a lot of factors that could be driving down homicide rates, including improvement in trauma medicine. Gory, but think about it.
Therefore, question 2 is moot.

 

[BULLDOG]

Don't feel too bad.Gun nuts still think your OP makes sense, but you gotta remember that they are nuts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Less households own guns than ever before. All the OP proves is that those households which do own guns, own a LOT of guns. But there are less people who own them, and that is what matters when it comes to the homicide rate.


When viewing the next graph, remember the Brady Bill was passed in 1993:

Doesnt matter.
I got laid in 1993. That must account for the difference.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some political positions are based on indoctrination, and eschew logic, intellect, and experience.
I refer to Left wing positions....
...in this case....gun control

Here is an exercise in logic, based on this visual.

The essay question for today is in two parts:

1. What do the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, when compared to the number of criminal homicides, prove?

2. Based on your response to #1 above.....what has been proven with respect to Left wing dogma about gun ownership and the second amendment?



Voting 'Present' is not acceptable.

1. What do the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, when compared to the number of criminal homicides, prove?
It proves nothing, in itself. Not only are less households owning guns, as G-5000 points out, but a correlation doesn't prove a cause and effect relationship. There are a lot of factors that could be driving down homicide rates, including improvement in trauma medicine. Gory, but think about it.
Therefore, question 2 is moot.

Then the Left's narrative that we need to reduce the number of guns to reduce crime is wrong. You just said so yourself. COrrelation is not causation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gun ownership in households has declined from 55% of the population to 30% of the population over the past 40 years.

The OP says nothing about households.

I know. That's my point. You attempted to establish a premise which linked a "quantity" of guns to the homicide rate. You ignored the number of people who own guns, because it doesn't fit your narrative. See my next post.

And the number of people who own guns does not include criminals. ANd yet the number of homicides went down. So controlling the number of guns will not reduce gun crime.
QED.
The Left just defeated their own argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some political positions are based on indoctrination, and eschew logic, intellect, and experience.
I refer to Left wing positions....
...in this case....gun control

Here is an exercise in logic, based on this visual.

The essay question for today is in two parts:

1. What do the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, when compared to the number of criminal homicides, prove?

2. Based on your response to #1 above.....what has been proven with respect to Left wing dogma about gun ownership and the second amendment?



Voting 'Present' is not acceptable.

Here's another 'chart', you'll have to picture it in that breathtakingly foul bag of gas you call your head.

The most precipitous decline in the homicide chart you posted correlates almost exactly with the Clinton presidency.

It also correlates quite closely to

1. the passage of the Brady bill in 1993, and,

2. the passage of the assault weapons ban in 1994.

3. the one period on the chart where new weapons sale decline sharply too.

...are you really sure you want to claim correlation is causation in your demented rant?

lol case closed.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Awesome logic lesson, once again. I have not yet recovered from the last logic lesson dealt by pc. Hahahaha

 

[The Rabbi]

1980:

Bob owns 2 guns, Joe owns 2 guns, Bill owns 0 guns, Jennifer owns 0 guns.

Number of guns owned: 4.

Percentage of gun ownership: 50%.

Homicide rate: 6.6 per 100,000



2015:

Bob now owns 6 guns, Joe owns 0 guns, Bill owns 0 guns, Jennifer owns 0 guns.

Number of guns owned: 6 (an increase of 50% since 1980).

Percentage of gun ownership: 25% (a decrease of 25% since 1980).

Homicide rate: 3.6


Now how stupid would you have to be, or just a plain hack, to build a premise that the increase in "gun circulation" is responsible for the drop in the homicide rate, and completely ignore the drop in gun ownership as a factor?

Joe bought more guns, but less people altogether own guns.

Thus concludeth the "logic lesson".

And since gun ownership hjas gotten easier generally since 1980 you prove that gun control will not affect crime at all.
QED
You defeated your own argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some political positions are based on indoctrination, and eschew logic, intellect, and experience.
I refer to Left wing positions....
...in this case....gun control

Here is an exercise in logic, based on this visual.

The essay question for today is in two parts:

1. What do the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, when compared to the number of criminal homicides, prove?

2. Based on your response to #1 above.....what has been proven with respect to Left wing dogma about gun ownership and the second amendment?



Voting 'Present' is not acceptable.

1. What do the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, when compared to the number of criminal homicides, prove?
It proves nothing, in itself. Not only are less households owning guns, as G-5000 points out, but a correlation doesn't prove a cause and effect relationship. There are a lot of factors that could be driving down homicide rates, including improvement in trauma medicine. Gory, but think about it.
Therefore, question 2 is moot.

Then the Left's narrative that we need to reduce the number of guns to reduce crime is wrong. You just said so yourself. COrrelation is not causation.

Then you agree her charts led her to an illogical conclusion.

Truth is, her charts don't even support her claims on which she bases her illogical conclusion.

 

[BULLDOG]

Gun ownership in households has declined from 55% of the population to 30% of the population over the past 40 years.

The OP says nothing about households.

I know. That's my point. You attempted to establish a premise which linked a "quantity" of guns to the homicide rate. You ignored the number of people who own guns, because it doesn't fit your narrative. See my next post.

And the number of people who own guns does not include criminals. ANd yet the number of homicides went down. So controlling the number of guns will not reduce gun crime.
QED.
The Left just defeated their own argument.

Who told you that people who own guns does not include criminals? Whoever that was is nuts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Awesome logic lesson, once again. I have not yet recovered from the last logic lesson dealt by pc. Hahahaha

I'm still amused by the ones in which she (unintentionally)

claimed Joe Biden is a Marxist

claimed JFK and RFK were Nazis,

claimed Winston Churchill was a Bolshevik.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Oh, and fewer households, and fewer citizens.

 

[BULLDOG]

Awesome logic lesson, once again. I have not yet recovered from the last logic lesson dealt by pc. Hahahaha

I'm still amused by the ones in which she (unintentionally)

claimed Joe Biden is a Marxist

claimed JFK and RFK were Nazis,

claimed Winston Churchill was a Bolshevik.

Don't be so hard on the poor little twit. She is only repeating what others have told her. She's not capable of forming any logical opinions on her own.