Graph and Logic Lesson For The Day

[The Rabbi]

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?

That laws are ineffective in preventing crime.
QED
You just defeated your own argument.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

That's a scatter plot of the data I did from the year 1994 to 2012. That's the years I could find murder incident data on the FBI website. The scatter plot uses the number of guns owned as the x-axis, and number of murders as the y-axis. As you can see, the relationship is not at all linear. I didn't even bother doing a regression once I saw the scatter plot. There's absolutely no point.

It's possible that if we went back to 1984 you might have more data, but I'd find that very doubtful.

That pretty much settles it. There's not really anything to learn from the data you posted.

BTW, I did that again for the murder rate, which is usually the data point that reputable scientists use to study violent crime. The scatter plot doesn't change at all. There's still no linear relation.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a scatter plot of the data I did from the year 1994 to 2012. That's the years I could find murder incident data on the FBI website. The scatter plot uses the number of guns owned as the x-axis, and number of murders as the y-axis. As you can see, the relationship is not at all linear. I didn't even bother doing a regression once I saw the scatter plot. There's absolutely no point.

It's possible that if we went back to 1984 you might have more data, but I'd find that very doubtful.

That pretty much settles it. There's not really anything to learn from the data you posted.

BTW, I did that again for the murder rate, which is usually the data point that reputable scientists use to study violent crime. The scatter plot doesn't change at all. There's still no linear relation.

So the number of guns in circulation is irrelevant to the crime rate.
Thanks!
End gun control now.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

That's a scatter plot of the data I did from the year 1994 to 2012. That's the years I could find murder incident data on the FBI website. The scatter plot uses the number of guns owned as the x-axis, and number of murders as the y-axis. As you can see, the relationship is not at all linear. I didn't even bother doing a regression once I saw the scatter plot. There's absolutely no point.

It's possible that if we went back to 1984 you might have more data, but I'd find that very doubtful.

That pretty much settles it. There's not really anything to learn from the data you posted.

BTW, I did that again for the murder rate, which is usually the data point that reputable scientists use to study violent crime. The scatter plot doesn't change at all. There's still no linear relation.

So the number of guns in circulation is irrelevant to the crime rate.
Thanks!
End gun control now.

That's one way to read it for sure. All I can say is that if you are going to make an argument relating these two datasets (gun sales vs. number of murders), you can't argue more guns makes you either more or less safe.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a scatter plot of the data I did from the year 1994 to 2012. That's the years I could find murder incident data on the FBI website. The scatter plot uses the number of guns owned as the x-axis, and number of murders as the y-axis. As you can see, the relationship is not at all linear. I didn't even bother doing a regression once I saw the scatter plot. There's absolutely no point.

It's possible that if we went back to 1984 you might have more data, but I'd find that very doubtful.

That pretty much settles it. There's not really anything to learn from the data you posted.

BTW, I did that again for the murder rate, which is usually the data point that reputable scientists use to study violent crime. The scatter plot doesn't change at all. There's still no linear relation.

So the number of guns in circulation is irrelevant to the crime rate.
Thanks!
End gun control now.

That's one way to read it for sure. All I can say is that if you are going to make an argument relating these two datasets (gun sales vs. number of murders), you can't argue more guns makes you either more or less safe.

OK. You're right.
So why does the Left want to restrict all this? It doesnt work.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's a scatter plot of the data I did from the year 1994 to 2012. That's the years I could find murder incident data on the FBI website. The scatter plot uses the number of guns owned as the x-axis, and number of murders as the y-axis. As you can see, the relationship is not at all linear. I didn't even bother doing a regression once I saw the scatter plot. There's absolutely no point.

It's possible that if we went back to 1984 you might have more data, but I'd find that very doubtful.

That pretty much settles it. There's not really anything to learn from the data you posted.

BTW, I did that again for the murder rate, which is usually the data point that reputable scientists use to study violent crime. The scatter plot doesn't change at all. There's still no linear relation.

So the number of guns in circulation is irrelevant to the crime rate.
Thanks!
End gun control now.

That's one way to read it for sure. All I can say is that if you are going to make an argument relating these two datasets (gun sales vs. number of murders), you can't argue more guns makes you either more or less safe.

OK. You're right.
So why does the Left want to restrict all this? It doesnt work.

The left doesn't want to restrict everyone's guns. Just the ones that everyone agrees shouldn't have one. Why does the right fight so hard to guarantee that every thug and crazy person gets a gun?

 

[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.

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.

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.

That's a scatter plot of the data I did from the year 1994 to 2012. That's the years I could find murder incident data on the FBI website. The scatter plot uses the number of guns owned as the x-axis, and number of murders as the y-axis. As you can see, the relationship is not at all linear. I didn't even bother doing a regression once I saw the scatter plot. There's absolutely no point.

It's possible that if we went back to 1984 you might have more data, but I'd find that very doubtful.

That pretty much settles it. There's not really anything to learn from the data you posted.

BTW, I did that again for the murder rate, which is usually the data point that reputable scientists use to study violent crime. The scatter plot doesn't change at all. There's still no linear relation.

So the number of guns in circulation is irrelevant to the crime rate.
Thanks!
End gun control now.

Sell machineguns to 9 year olds?

 

[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?

That laws are ineffective in preventing crime.

It proves no such thing either for or against laws. You are pulling your conclusion out of your ass.

I was simply using PC's own premise to expose the shortcomings of her "logic lesson".

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's a scatter plot of the data I did from the year 1994 to 2012. That's the years I could find murder incident data on the FBI website. The scatter plot uses the number of guns owned as the x-axis, and number of murders as the y-axis. As you can see, the relationship is not at all linear. I didn't even bother doing a regression once I saw the scatter plot. There's absolutely no point.

It's possible that if we went back to 1984 you might have more data, but I'd find that very doubtful.

That pretty much settles it. There's not really anything to learn from the data you posted.

BTW, I did that again for the murder rate, which is usually the data point that reputable scientists use to study violent crime. The scatter plot doesn't change at all. There's still no linear relation.

So the number of guns in circulation is irrelevant to the crime rate.
Thanks!
End gun control now.

That's one way to read it for sure. All I can say is that if you are going to make an argument relating these two datasets (gun sales vs. number of murders), you can't argue more guns makes you either more or less safe.

OK. You're right.
So why does the Left want to restrict all this? It doesnt work.

Why are there laws against child molesting when child molesting keeps happening?

 

[g5000]

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.

Gun ownership has not gotten easier since 1980. That's complete bullshit.

Fully automatic weapons were banned by Reagan in the 1980s. The Brady Bill was enacted in 1993, requiring a person to pass a background check to purchase a gun.

 

[g5000]

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.

PC was attempting to create a narrative that more guns means less homicides. This "logic lesson" was deeply flawed and utterly failed.

You can try and rescue her all you like, but that's what happened. No escape from that fact.

 

[g5000]

That's a scatter plot of the data I did from the year 1994 to 2012. That's the years I could find murder incident data on the FBI website. The scatter plot uses the number of guns owned as the x-axis, and number of murders as the y-axis. As you can see, the relationship is not at all linear. I didn't even bother doing a regression once I saw the scatter plot. There's absolutely no point.

It's possible that if we went back to 1984 you might have more data, but I'd find that very doubtful.

That pretty much settles it. There's not really anything to learn from the data you posted.

BTW, I did that again for the murder rate, which is usually the data point that reputable scientists use to study violent crime. The scatter plot doesn't change at all. There's still no linear relation.

So the number of guns in circulation is irrelevant to the crime rate.
Thanks!
End gun control now.

See how you and PC carefully framed the picture to be about "guns in circulation"? This is propaganda horseshit meant to imply an increase in the number of gun owners. Since gun ownership has actually DECLINED, a misleading expression had to be invented to imply it has gone up.

A bogus argument was made, and blown to bits. You and PC have set the pro-gun argument back with your dishonesty.

The "guns in circulation" lie of omission has been utterly destroyed.

Next time, try being honest. It serves the cause much better.

 

[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.

PC was attempting to create a narrative that more guns means less homicides. This "logic lesson" was deeply flawed and utterly failed.

You can try and rescue her all you like, but that's what happened. No escape from that fact.

But the corollary is "less guns less crime" and that is also not true.
Ergo there is no purpose to gun control in reducing crime, because it doesnt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s."
Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet


Wow.....sure looks like the spittle-spewing Liberals are wrong again!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Gun-Homicide Rate Decreased as Gun Ownership Increased"
Gun-Homicide Rate Decreased as Gun Ownership Increased

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ho hum.....

Another day, another Liberal myth shot (carefully chosen term!) to heck.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just wonder where they got their stats about the number of households have gun owners.

If someone called me, or I filled out a survey, I wouldn't admit to owning a firearm.

This seems to support your post....

"One obvious caution is that not everyone feels comfortable noting that they own guns. A recent Zogby Analytics survey asked, "If a national pollster asked you if you owned a firearm, would you determine to tell him or her the truth or would you feel it was none of their business?” Thirty-five percent of current gun owners said it was none of pollsters’ business. People who claim that they are not gun owners are slightly more likely to answer this way.

Ironically, the same GSS poll that finds gun ownership to be at a record low also finds that "confidence in all three branches of government is at or near record lows.” Those who don’t trust the government might also be less likely to admit to owning a gun.

We also know that recent events influence people’s willingness to acknowledge gun ownership. After mass shootings, the numbers fall. But, with gun sales soaring during the early to mid-1990s, it is hard to believe that gun ownership really fell according to the Gallup poll by 17 percentage points between 1994 and 1999. Most likely the mass public shootings simply made people reticent to acknowledge to pollsters that they owned guns."
Is gun ownership really down in America? | Fox News

 

[L.K.Eder]

Lol. Another logic lesson. They assumed that the guns are evenly distributed among all of the population.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Once again, pc has learned nothing and just repeats her initial error.