THE PUZZLE OF MURDER-BY-GUN STATISTICS

[SteveInCOParticipant]

@unseen I nodded when I saw this just now…

Then I realized the blue bars are “homicides by firearm” for the countries. In other words this flies in the face of what his study actually claims (as opposed to what he has insisted it proves, instead)… unless I am misunderstanding the definition of “homicide.”

• This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by  SteveInCO. Reason: Added unseen's name so people would know what I meant by "I saw this"

[_Robert_Participant]

I was curious about what the murder rate was before guns were common. This surprised me a bit.. I guess we are a kinder more gentle people even with all the firearms

source
http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence-rights/homicides/

• This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by  _Robert_.

[.Spectator]

I think @unseen it all depends on what part of the country you’re talking about. I’ll tell you right now that there IS a HUGE correlation of gun ownership and murder rate in New Mexico. Without question.

[UnseenParticipant]

Gallup’s Mirror wrote:

I’m sure that gun rights activist and non-epidemiologist Guy Smith makes all sorts of interesting charts whenever he’s not busy chumming around with the NRA.

So GM’s last stand would be a poisoning of the well. I knew you were out of ammunition when I saw how short your post was. LOL

[UnseenParticipant]

Belle Rose wrote:

I think @unseen it all depends on what part of the country you’re talking about. I’ll tell you right now that there IS a HUGE correlation of gun ownership and murder rate in New Mexico. Without question.

And there’s an even closer correlation in a household where there’s been a gun homicide. I’m talking big picture not local picture.

[Gallup’s MirrorParticipant]

So GM’s last stand would be a poisoning of the well.

Pointing out a conflict of interest is neither a logical fallacy nor a poisoning of the well. The political dogma surrounding gun rights is just as stupid as any religious dogma.

I knew you were out of ammunition when I saw how short your post was. LOL

Face it, Unseen. You got your brains beaten out. I knew it when you started fantasizing that our respective positions are reversed; paraphrasing with dishonest euphemisms that my point has failed (“GM’s last stand!”) despite your own failure to rebut it.

[UnseenParticipant]

Gallup’s Mirror wrote:

Face it, Unseen. You got your brains beaten out. I knew it when you started fantasizing that our respective positions are reversed; paraphrasing with dishonest euphemisms that my point has failed (“GM’s last stand!”) despite your own failure to rebut it.

Yada yada yade. Bush on the deck of the aircraft carrier.

[.Spectator]

@unseen, it does matter. You cannot make a sweeping generalization on this issue. The problem (and the solutions) are not uniform cookie cutter that can be the same in all places. A more regional approach makes sense in tackling this issue AND in understanding it.

[UnseenParticipant]

Belle Rose wrote:

it does matter. You cannot make a sweeping generalization on this issue. The problem (and the solutions) are not uniform cookie cutter that can be the same in all places. A more regional approach makes sense in tackling this issue AND in understanding it.

You don’t understand what this thread is about, then. I’m REFUTING the sweeping generalization that there is a correlation between gun ownership and murder rate. I’m saying generalizations don’t bear up under scrutiny.

[Gallup’s MirrorParticipant]

Gallup: …you started fantasizing that our respective positions are reversed; paraphrasing with dishonest euphemisms that my point has failed (“GM’s last stand!”) despite your own failure to rebut it.
Unseen: Yada yada yade.

Willful ignorance. You can’t rebut, so you must avoid…

Bush on the deck of the aircraft carrier.

…and lie.

[Gallup’s MirrorParticipant]

Belle: It does matter. You cannot make a sweeping generalization on this issue. The problem (and the solutions) are not uniform cookie cutter that can be the same in all places. A more regional approach makes sense in tackling this issue AND in understanding it.

Unseen: You don’t understand what this thread is about, then. I’m REFUTING the sweeping generalization that there is a correlation between gun ownership and murder rate.

Assumption fallacy.

A generalization means taking a position using a very small statistical sample. The research I posted cited data obtained from 27 countries with a collective population well into the hundred millions. Epidemiology on a scale so vast is not a sweeping generalization.

Refuted it? You won’t even acknowledge it.

I’m saying generalizations don’t bear up under scrutiny.

Dishonest paraphrasing.

Unseen is saying there is “no relationship whatsoever” between rates of gun ownership and murder, a claim which is scientifically untrue.

@Belle
The reactions of some participants in this thread resemble religious fanaticism, only the dogma is ideological. Rational discourse is impossible when someone is so uncritical of a sacred cow that not even scientific research causes any doubt in his mind.

[UnseenParticipant]

Gallup’s Mirror wrote:

Willful ignorance. You can’t rebut, so you must avoid…

You have no answer for the chart other than to poison the well.

[Gallup’s MirrorParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

You have no answer for the chart other than to poison the well.

I’ve already answered. You don’t know what poisoning the well means. It is not logically fallacious to point out a conflict of interest. Gun rights activism is not epidemiology.

Yes, Gallup, but you have no answer!!! Say it again, Unseen. I double dare you.

[Gregg R ThomasParticipant]

Up close knife, more distance handgun, long distance rifle w/scope.

[UnseenParticipant]

Gallup’s Mirror wrote:

I’ve already answered. You don’t know what poisoning the well means. It is not logically fallacious to point out a conflict of interest. Gun rights activism is not epidemiology.

I know the fallacy well enough to understand that you’re basically criticizing the provider of the chart rather than the chart itself. I guess that’s a combination of an ad hominem and poisoning the well.

[Author]

Posts