Studying for an "F", By My son Robert Jr.

Good work. Remind him that the "rates per 100,000" need to be weighted because of population density differences between the states. One homicide in a town of 15,000 is of much greater statistical significance than one homicide in a town of 150,000.

Lott used rate trends because of this imbalance. Others have tried to create "like parametered areas" for this comparison and have ended up being biased in other ways. This has always been a problem and will remain so, so long as one tries to use logic and numbers to understand people. :D

Pops
 
I will thanks Pops. I'm amazed on just what he was able to come up with. He had a debate before the elections in class and took the gun control toppic and really chewed the anties up. He even had the professor shaking his head. When it comes to his guns he takes things serious. As do I and our whole family.
 
Why doesn't ND have an F??

What the heck? :confused: North Dakota only got a D. We must have been copying off of Minnesota's paper (C-) instead of Montana (F). :cool:

/Hopes he gets an A for that project.
 
I did enjoy reading the paper, and it does help underline the ridiculous nature of gun control.


But it is not really going to change any minds. For his premise to hold any water one has to assume some causality. In other words, does the inverse relationship actually predicting something, or are the facts indicative of other factors?

The antis can easily look at this comparison and say "The states with the least gun control need it least. The states with high crime are using gun control to combat a problem that is unique to those places. Arguably, if those violent crime states didn't have gun control, the stats would be even worse." We all tend to believe that that last statement is false, but we can't prove it, either.


Especially inconvient in the data are those states with low rates and higher grades, like Hawaii, Rhode Island and Nebraska. They have the 11, 12 and 13 ranks for lowest violent crime, yet have an A-, B- and B-, respectively for gun control.

By the same token, the violent crime rates in Tennesse, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and New Mexico are the worst in the country, and coupled to D and F grades. In fact, their crime rates are much, much worse than place like New York and California.


What am I getting at? Don't use this data to try and make a point against gun control. The data provides just as much fuel for gun control as doubt about its effectiveness, especially when you consider the worst crime states. If I could pick out these details in two minutes, so can the legislators. It would be best to forget about it.
 
Handy, that was the whole point I was getting at. If they actually used a set guideline for determining grades then the grades they assigned were not strictly arbitrary. If this be the cast then they can be safely quantified and compared to crime statistics, in which case, it can be shown that the results of gun control are inconsistant at best. There is evidence to go both ways. We may find that the language of the Second Amendment and the intent of the Framers was clear enough to be beyond repute. But our opponents seek to complicate and confuse the issue at every turn for personal and political gain. With regards to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, we may very likely find the definative moment comes in court. The advantage we have in this situation is that we don't have to prove that gun control doesn't work. The right is already ours and if they wish to restrict this right, then the burden of proof is on them. They have to be able to show beyond a reasonible doubt that gun control works in controlling crime. Looking at this comparrison, more than enough evidence exist to cast more than just a shadow of a doubt on this theory. Rather, this comparrison would seem to indicate that one must be willing to accept, correctly, that there are other much more important factors involved in controlling crime that gun control activist do not take into account.
Finally, on a lower level, I felt it more than a little humorous that they took the time to put together these report cards that aren't worth the paper they are written on because they mean precisely jack...
 
Another thing to consider is culture. When I was in Hawaii I spent some time walking around. Lots of friendly people, very nice. IIRC, it's part of their culture to be this way. This can have an impact that a thousand gun control laws don't. I'm sure considering this, and other laws that the Brady Bunch don't consider(like not being allowed to be held liable criminally or civilly for defending yourself) influence this.
 
MT,

The grades assigned ARE based on quantifiable things; namely, the number of gun control laws in effect in a given state. While distasteful, I think that is entirely fair and not the basis for argument.

The problem I'm having with this study is that it uses SOME of the data to suggest a trend (inverse relationship between crime and gun control), that is not supported by all the data.

The danger here is that in citing such an argument, we look like liars. Mr. Boren Jr's study weakens the support of the 2nd Amendment by its existance, because bad data makes for a weak argument, and weak arguments are usually interpretted to be part of a weak cause.


Ours is not a weak cause. Let us not do damage to that cause with weak arguments.
 
But I never suggest in the data that there is an inverse relationship. In fact, I do just the opposite and say that it is hard to show a relationship one way or another. Did you even read the data before you challenged it? I challenge you to show one place where I conclude that there is such a relationship.

If you try to show you have an inverse relationship, you do have a pretty weak argument--just as weak as saying there is a direct relationship. But if you argue that there is no relationship between gun control and crime then this data provides strong evidence to support this.

I must admit that, as most of us would, I fully expected to see a reverse correlation where the lower grades would also have all the lower crime rates. And while I found cases where this was true, as the graphs printed out, I realized that I had errored. It is really difficult to find a strong relationship one way or another in this data.
Click to expand...

Now, if we were trying to show a trend, we'd want the plots of each consecutive data set to line up so that, for the most part, the minimum value of one plot is close to the maximum value of the plot before it. If we were trying to show that as your state's Brady Grade rose, your state's violent crime and homicide rates dropped, we want to see each consecutive plot to be slightly above the plot before it, graphing from higher grades to lower, so that it could be shown there was a definite relationship between gun control and crime rate, or, more specifically, more gun control = less crime. This can not be shown with this data, but then, neither can the opposite. There is simply too much overlapping in data to show a trend one way or another.
Click to expand...

What all this means is that a state's gun control measures, as rated and approved by the Brady Campain, can not be shown to have a clear correlation, or relationship, either positive or negative, with that state's violent crime and homicide rates.
Click to expand...
 
MT, are you Boren Jr? That would explain your comments.


I'm not saying there is a particular conclusion made by the author, I'm saying that there are enough 'points of interest' in the data for any side to pick out. The gun people are going to latch onto states 1 through 10, figured so prominently, and point to it as the inverse relationship. Unfortunately, the stats of the last five most violent states LOOK alot more damning than the rather unconnected stats of states 1 through 13, and that's what the anti's and those on the fence are just as likely to notice. The conclusions of the author get lost in the face of the numbers, since that is what the champions of either cause will latch on to.

What I was disagreeing with was using this data to try and prove ANY point, because it will backfire. I'm speaking of the political ramifications of the data, not the logical conclusions.
 
MT, are you Boren Jr?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I'm not saying there is a particular conclusion made by the author, I'm saying that there are enough 'points of interest' in the data for any side to pick out.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Looking at this data, one would have to be pretty stupid to make an argument one way or another. All you'd have to do is counter by telling them there is insufficent evidence to conclude one way or another and list a couple discrepencies and they'd be shut down. Like I said, the data looks much better in Excel. When you graph it, you really can't see a relationship one way or another. It's pretty clear the data is inconclusive.

What I was disagreeing with was using this data to try and prove ANY point, because it will backfire. I'm speaking of the political ramifications of the data, not the logical conclusions.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree. As I stated earlier, they have the burden of proof. Being able to demonstrate the complete lack of a correlation one way or another is nearly as good for us as being able to show that a state's level of gun control is inversely proportional to their crime rate. In order to show cause to restrict our right to keep and bear arms, the antis have to be able to a) show that crime is a legitimate cause and b) show beyond a reasonable doubt that gun control works at controlling crime. If this report card is indicative of what they have in defense of their cause, then they can effectively argue neither. We on the other hand can use this data to our advantage not by trying to argue an inverse relationship, but by arguing no relationship at all.
 
MT,

You're using the language of the courtroom to discuss an emotional debate. Don't expect anyone with an agenda to bow to the correctness of numbers or a bystander to look into them. They will just look at the raw numbers and notice the five worse states, for instance.

Is that stupid? Of course. So is gun control. Unfortunately, public opinion includes the stupid ones, and you can't bring everyone up to your level. If you start with somewhat shocking data, the boring results will NOT get the press. I'm trying to tell you that it the math doesn't matter if the starting point looks bad. And those initial stats don't look good.

What do you think is a more likely headline after the press reads your study:
"Connection Between Crime and Gun Control Not Statistically Relevent"
or
"Study Shows: Five Most Violent States Rated Poorest For Gun Control"

Both are true, both are facts included in your study. Do you really give people that much credit?
 
That is a good point, but using this data, the second headline is blatantly false and this could be easily demonstrated. The top five lowest crime rates were all Ds and of the top five lowest homocide rates, three were Ds. I am not one to accuse the media of giving much consideration to truth, so, yes, your point here is relavent.

The simple solution is not to use it in the media. Keep the data for yourself and use it to debate simply minded sheeple in private debates. Send it to your senators and representatives. It may or may not help. Most people hear what they want to hear. But having evidence to support your cause is never a bad thing, and this data certainly benefits us more than "them."
 
"Study Shows: Five Most Violent States Rated Among the Poorest For Gun Control"

And now it is a fact.
 
Competing newspaper: "STUDY SHOWS: Top five least violent states rated poorest for gun control."

Still a fact. Any conclussion one way or another is easily checked. Luckily, we don't need to prove an inverse relationship, just that there isn't a direct relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top