The second amendment

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
Post Reply
User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44006
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:47 pm

That's not a citation. That's a snippet of a screenshot of an unnamed spreadsheet with two columns of numbers in it.

And frustratingly, it still doesn't show in any way that gun owners commit suicide more often. At best it shows a very inconsistent and loose correlation between how many adults in a given survey claimed or admitted to a government agency that they own a gun in a given state and how many people commit suicides in that state. Attempting to claim anything useful from that is ridiculous, which is where you end up with suicides in the 13th lowest state in gun ownership are still 25% more than the 4th highest state. Of course, that's if you really take at face value the responses from that survey where respondents in one of the gun violence capitals of the US (the actual capital of the US, as it turns out) that only 5.2% of adults admit to the government they illegally have guns.

But when you look at actual successful suicides, you see that half are committed with a gun involved and half are not. For the half involving guns, it's not immediately clear how they got the gun they used or who owned it. Nor is it safe to assume that if they didn't have access to the gun, like in the other half of suicides, they wouldn't have bothered. That's true for some, surely, but it's not clear how many or few.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The second amendment

Post by The Cid » Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:04 am

NorthernComfort wrote:I support the 2nd amendment, but I think the NRA is full of shit. Their talking points are half-truths and they prefer to deny the less pleasant realities about guns. I think it's childish and ultimately detrimental to their cause.
Not only do I in principal agree with you, I believe that the gun laws you might want have already been written.

Most gun-related murders, and especially those that contribute to the high murder rates in specific cities, are committed with guns that are already illegal. We're talking laws about selling stolen property, and filing the serial numbers off of a gun. Make all the laws you might want, common sense or no, and they won't make a dent in those murders. Those guns are already illegal.

I think people who might consider themselves in favor of the second amendment would rather focus on those laws than creating new ones. Because I'm not from New York, in fact look at my signature and despair New Yoakah, but I'm from the northeast where guns are restricted heavily, the same reality in which you operate. It's not that we're not hitting guns hard enough, it's that we're focusing on rhetoric and stereotypes rather than reality.

The reality being that there is already an underground gun trade, and changing which guns one is allowed to have will only be a boon to that trade. Now, if we were to stop concentrating on what ought to be a law, and start concentrating on "there are a lot of unaccounted-for guns on the streets right this second," maybe a difference could be made.

That, to me at least, is reality. It doesn't require some fight with the bullshit NRA that is a marketing organization (and I would know, as that is my language) or the Republican Party that deals in a version of reality with which I strongly disagree, it requires effort we should be making right this second.

Left, right, blue, red, whatever.

But if you'd rather dig your heels in on an argument about whose reality is accurate, be my guest.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:18 am

Deacon wrote:That's not a citation. That's a snippet of a screenshot of an unnamed spreadsheet with two columns of numbers in it.
Jeez, I query the CDC, export it and tidy it up in a nice spreadsheet, and this is the kind of thanks I get? Next time you can query WISQARS yourself.
Deacon wrote:And frustratingly, it still doesn't show in any way that gun owners commit suicide more often.
Image
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44006
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:45 am

That chart doesn't say anything about gun owners. At best it makes an informal correlation between states that have higher gun ownership and higher suicide rates. In other words, while interesting, it's not meaningful. And it absolutely does not back up the leap to your assertion that those in any state who own a gun are themselves more likely to commit suicide than their neighbors who do not. Based on the data, they're exactly as un/likely as their gunless neighbors. What if 90% were committed without guns involved, even though your unlabeled chart doesn't change? Would you still say guns "enable" more suicides?

Can it not be that those states with higher rates have more gun-owning huntress and plinkers, have fewer mental health and suicide support resources available, have higher rates of poverty, and all the other actual causal factors in suicide and separately in gun ownership compared to places where gun owners are unlikely to voluntarily identify themselves to government agents?

Because honestly I can't tell if you're truly convinced of your assertion and are just overlooking the gaps you're trying to bridge in spite of the numbers. Or if you you're just seeing how far you can push me. Or what.

And in general, I agree with The Cid's points.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Sat Aug 13, 2016 12:15 pm

Deacon wrote:What if 90% were committed without guns involved, even though your unlabeled chart doesn't change? Would you still say guns "enable" more suicides?
No, I'd find the data especially bizarre in that alternate universe. Because that's not reality. In reality, about 50% of suicide deaths use firearms. Therefore it's pretty easy to figure out why states with higher gun ownership commit suicide at higher rates. Guns are a highly lethal option, and easy access allows a fast rash decision. Having access to them increases the chances of success.

I have said this over and over. It's not rocket science. Just use common sense my friend.

You can say it's an "informal" correlation, or be snarky about the "unlabeled" chart but I'm afraid your snark does not defeat a statistically significant linear correlation between 2 data sets backed up by good old fashioned logic and common sense.
Deacon wrote:have fewer mental health and suicide support resources available, have higher rates of poverty, and all the other actual causal factors in suicide...
These are all valuable hypotheses. How about you go and get the data and draw up some charts and see if their correlations are statistically significant. Or you can you just speculate aimlessly...?

Seriously. Cite it or pull the data yourself. It's not difficult. It's time to shit or get off the pot.
Deacon wrote:Because honestly I can't tell if you're truly convinced of your assertion and are just overlooking the gaps you're trying to bridge in spite of the numbers. Or if you you're just seeing how far you can push me. Or what.
Sure, you can fall back upon doubting my sincerity when all else fails.

But at this point, you have totally failed to present a convincing counter-argument. Here's what you've actually done, in my response to claiming that gun owners commit suicide at higher rates. You said the CDC said it was a fallacy, and then failed to cite it. (this is bullshit, it doesn't exist) You failed to present any data to support your view. You tried to cast doubt upon the data that I literally got from the CDC. You tried to deny any correlation between the two. You then say it's an informal correlation, and have tried to suggest other reasons are more convincing, despite not offering any data or citations. And then you suggest I am not even convinced of my own argument! As we say on the internet: LOL.

Time to shit or get off the pot buddy.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
raptor9k
Crazy Person
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Arkansas
Contact:

Re: The second amendment

Post by raptor9k » Mon Aug 15, 2016 2:43 pm

In actuality, you're probably both at least partially correct. Turns out complicated issues can't really be summed up with simple statements. This map actually follows the suicide map pretty closely and it's a ranking of state mental health issues and access to treatment.

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/issu ... ing-states
I'm putting my talents and skills to use for a business so that I receive compensatory funds that I may then choose to spend and invest and save as I see fit. If I choose to blow it all on hookers and Dr. Seuss books, I don't see how that means you owe me a comfortable retirement. - Deacon

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44006
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:48 pm

NorthernComfort wrote:No, I'd find the data especially bizarre in that alternate universe. Because that's not reality. In reality, about 50% of suicide deaths use firearms. Therefore it's pretty easy to figure out why states with higher gun ownership commit suicide at higher rates.
This is really frustrating. I'm sure it is the other away around, too, but you're making huge, sweeping assumptions, and then applying them directly to a specific class of person, someone who owns guns. But you're just assuming that a state with a high suicide rate is not only all firearms-enabled but in fact that it's gun owners themselves who are more apt to commit suicide. I completely understand why you're making that leap. But it's waaay too shallow a pool of data to dive into head first like that.

You did not provide any information or sources, other than a vague suggestion that some of the abstract data points may have come from WISQARS to achieve your super shallow correlation. You don't bother saying what years you're pulling data from, for example. Or where you got the survey data of people who have a landline and answer the phone and admit firearms ownership to a government agency. Much less links to any of these sources. And this aggressive, repeated "shit or get off the pot" thing is a little confusing, because I don't know what exactly it is that I'm supposed to be shitting out for you on demand.

So let's take a simple look at breaking down only one single element of your assumptions, the crux of your argument, that states with higher suicide rates are because guns. Let's see if it holds up at all, much less with consistency. You could've done this, and really should've, but I'll do it for you. Taking data from WISQARS, pulling rates of suicides of adults 21 and up (who are therefore eligible to be owners of firearms in essentially all states) over the date range of 2010 to 2014 (to avoid any oddball spikes or dips), selecting those where firearms were used versus non-firearms means, we see that other than the three highest states with low populations, and other than a handful of areas where guns are largely illegal, it's a fairly even split. Yes, there are more suicides overall, but no, it's not true that those suicides are overwhelmingly using firearms. I mean really, the top three populous states (Nevada, Utah, New Mexico) have more NON-firearms suicides than Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have TOTAL suicides. That's not because firearms enabled the non-firearms suicides.

Image

But of course there's no way to tell how many of either class of suicide were actually committed by people who happen to own guns. People who don't own guns could have obtained possession of one and used it. People who do own guns may have chosen not to use one. But it's clear that higher suicide rates overall aren't accounted for simply because guns. If that were true, you'd see very little green on that chart as you get anywhere near the bottom; it'd be all red. It's not.
You tried to deny any correlation between the two.
Of course not. I denied any causation, and I pointed out that the broad assumptions you were making were unsupported by data. It doesn't take citations to figure this out. I can intuit it easily enough, but your intuition (relabeled by you as "common sense" to try to give it some aura of validity) led in a different way. So throw logic at it instead: if half of suicides weren't done using guns, then how can you say gun owners commit more suicides because guns? It's impossible to get to that point. Just fundamentally, the math doesn't support it.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:29 am

Thanks for more data! But you haven't done a good job of interpreting it. Here's what's actually going on with those green and red bars. (just using your data with 2004 survey)

First, let's look at the gun suicides, and correlate it with ownership rates. (the red bars)

Image

We continue to see the strong linear correlation between ownership and gun suicides. Next, let's look at the other suicides. (the green bars)

Image

We get no correlation between gun ownership and "other suicide" rates. This doesn't bode well for the hypotheses about mental health expenditure and access. Instead, this goes back to the basic argument I've been saying all along... but, hey, thanks for providing the data, since it has illustrated my point so well.
Deacon wrote:we see that other than the three highest states with low populations, and other than a handful of areas where guns are largely illegal, it's a fairly even split.
An even split? Like the ratio is constant between gun:other methods, throughout all states except a few outliers? Not even close, dude. This is where you really need to look at the data more closely.

Here is the "even split" when charted against gun ownership rates. This chart shows gun suicide rate as % of total (gun+other) suicide rate. As you can see, higher gun ownership rates correlate positively with the percentage of suicides involving firearms.

Image

More gun ownership = higher overall suicide rate
More gun ownership = higher % of overall suicides that use guns
More gun ownership = no relation to "other suicide" rate

I'd call it common sense, you can call it whatever you want. It's reality.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44006
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:05 am

It's really frustrating that you don't label your charts, there's no indication of what order states are listed in assuming states are one of the axes, nor any indication of what suicide data you're using (e.g. date range, age range, anything else). Assuming you're using Excel to create your charts, it adds at least the states by default. Or it does in Excel 2013 I was using, at least.

It's also frustrating that not only are you putting so much faith in your government agency survey, but when you finally revealed your source it was from 2004. It may or may not change the results, but that was the year the silly "assault weapons" ban finally expired, and the ensuing years--especially the last 8--have been record years for civilian gun purchases, spurred on by growing availability of license to carry programs and every time Obama and the Democrats start threatening to institute "common sense" gun and ammunition limitations and bans. Have suicides followed the steep increase of gun ownership in the 12 years since your survey?

I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that guns were chosen more often as the means of suicide when guns are more available. But that's not what you said. You said gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than those who don't own guns. While the fact that only 50% of successful suicides are committed using guns seems to cast substantial doubt on that assertion (as you'd have to believe that gun owners still committed suicide but chose not to use one to do so), even the broad presumptions I'd have to make about your charts don't support that.

I wish they made data available for attempted (unsuccessful) suicides. Would be interesting to compare.

PS PolitiFact looked into it and found that there are a number of different surveys done on gun ownership, and none of them agree with each other. They called the results "erratic" and said in the end...
How should we take all these confusing poll results? Perhaps with a grain of salt.

Pew said in a March 2013 report that there’s "no definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many Americans own guns or how gun ownership rates have changed over time. Also, public opinion surveys provide conflicting results: Some show a decline in the number of households with guns, but another does not."
PPS Gallup has a ton of interesting survey info. It shows that between 40 and 45 percent of American households are armed over the last few years. Amazingly it also shows that in the early '90s over 40 percent believed only police should be allowed to have handguns. My how the uninformed "common sense" has changed over time. Then again I guess that depends on who you ask. Seems like a lot of people these days believe that police are murderous racists and only they should have guns.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:07 am

Deacon wrote:It's really frustrating that you don't label your charts, there's no indication of what order states are listed in assuming states are one of the axes...
so... you don't know what a scatter plot is? or you didn't understand the titles, saying what x and y axes were? what do you even mean: "what order states are listed"?! dude... you can't read the charts? holy moly, this explains so much.

you can make as much fuss about the survey as you'd like, but i'd be happy to check correlations with any other reliably-sourced survey and we can see if quibbling about the data holds any water.
the politifact article Deacon linked wrote:But as with the other polls, the decrease is barely discernable when starting at 2000. That year, 35 percent of households had firearms. Fast forward to 2013, when it was 33 percent. In between those two years, the percentages once again bob up and down.
yup... my data from 2004 showed 38%. (as does your Gallup source). neither of your sources talk about state-by-state ownership, though. and state-by-state is kind of the crux of the entire issue here.
You said gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than those who don't own guns. While the fact that only 50% of successful suicides are committed using guns seems to cast substantial doubt on that assertion
despite statistically significant correlations already presented which completely go against what you're saying here.... yup this sounds like you can't read the charts.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44006
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:12 am

Gallup says a record number of Americans oppose gun bans. 76 percent oppose handgun ban, and 61 percent oppose "assault weapons" ban. Those are both all-time record highs, even considering the handgun question has been asked since 1949 and the "assault weapons" one since 1996, when politicians invented the term as part of their campaign legislate the Second Amendment out of existence.

Not the most awesome source, but thankfully they at least link to many others, which is handy. http://freebeacon.com/issues/poll-recor ... -gun-bans/

PS Interestingly I found out recently cactus leads to the extinction of bears, as the more cactus is found in an area, the higher the likelihood of bears having disappeared from the region.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:07 pm

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196658/suppo ... d-low.aspx

Oddly, the blog you linked to didn't link to the Gallup poll itself, despite them writing the blog post entirely about its results. Which is a bizarre omission of the primary source.

But you say "thankfully, they at least link to many other [sources], which is handy" ... uhhh- every single link in that blog post links to other posts on the same blog. It's just SEO juicing, typical of content aggregation clickbait sites which primarily thrive off Facebook traffic.

Even more interestingly, I've learned that passing fourth grade math leads to knowledge of scatter plots, hovering the mouse over links leads to knowing where they link to, and that knowing how to use Google can help people find better sources than whatever shit is in your FB feed.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44006
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:45 am

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... -amendment

In this case justice prevailed, at least so far. But when they come for your rights they will do so wearing the patronizing uniforms of health and safety. For you hold no dominion over your own self nor that of your children, except at the pleasure of the state.

It's important to remember that the reason the constitution exists, both at the federal and state levels but especially the federal, is to establish a limited framework for the creation of laws. The US Constitution does not carve out a few blacklisted areas where Congress cannot tread. It instead carves out a few whitelisted areas where Congress is allowed to tread, within reason. Congress has no authority except that given to it by the Constitution and confirmed and clarified by the courts. It is up to the state to justify under the Constitution why it has the authority to infringe on your rights. The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was not added to say these are the only areas the state cannot tread. It was to encode those most fundamental of rights such that not even the oiliest politician nor the most spooked herd of constituents should be able to trample them without the highest measure of overwhelming agreement.

"Yeah, I could imagine a scenario in which that would seem like a good idea" simply isn't enough to infringe on those rights. And importantly neither is the suggestion that "it's for their own good because we know better." Making it illegal to educate anyone under 18 on the safe handling and use of firearms, enforced by men with firearms and apparently no sense of irony, requires far more than some simpering suggestions of lead poisoning and distractions.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:47 pm

New rule: Chicago should teach all of their miscreant youth how to shoot responsibly. No more dead bystanders or toddlers playing with loaded pistols! Show some respect! I'm only half-joking- it's a funny idea, but probably would be a good outreach and help with gun safety... and lord knows every kid in that city has one.

But Trump is going to send in the feds... FBI? DEA? ATF? National Guard? We'll see what rights get trampled in the name of public safety.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44006
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:04 pm

All of them, I'm sure.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests