Remarks by the President on Common-Sense Gun Safety Reform

[Kulindahr]

Again, smoothing shows the sparsely-populated areas to have high rates of gun deaths because those areas have high rates of gun deaths.

Except that they misrepresent the reality by implying that every part of the county shown is highly dangerous. That's a gross distortion of reality. In a sparsely-populated area, almost all the area has a rate of death by firearm that approaches zero. So if the intent is to show risk, the map is a failure, regardless of smoothing.

To show risk, something on the order of a contour map would work better -- it would present the actual loci of the deaths, and leave the areas with none showing that. It might even turn out to show that just about every death by gun in some jurisdiction was within a single block of a specific bar, or in one certain trailer park -- and that would be useful information!

 

[Kulindahr]

But it is.
In fact, given people who live in sparsely populated areas have fewer interactions with others than people in cities.

Someone in the city might come into contact with dozens, maybe hundreds of people in a day.
More than someone in a country area might meet in a month.

That kind of means every interaction with another person in remote, high homicide rate counties is substantially more likely to result in a homicide by my reckoning...

But the data don't tell you that. They don't tell you if these were justified self-defense, righteous shootings by cops, or arguments in bars. They don't even tell you if the people actually lived there. And they especially don't tell you whether it was people shooting themselves, which isn't a danger to you at all.

You guys and ben are talking past each other, and your conclusion here demonstrates why: you're assuming that every death by gun is someone shooting someone else, and that every square foot of a sparsely-populated county is as dangerous as any other, while he's failing miserably at getting across the point that this assumption is not just false but not justified by the data.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, exactly. That's what makes this data so fascinating.

The probability of interaction with another person in a rural area is substantially LESS than that of the probability of interaction with another person in an urban area. And yet, it would seem that the possibility of that interaction resulting in a gun death is far, far more likely in rural areas than urban. Presumably, the reason for this is that rural people possess more guns per capita than urban people, and are therefore more likely to shoot them. Which is hardly a surprising finding.

But, these facts are troubling to Ben, who can only appreciate this in racial terms. The data imply that white, rural people are more violent that black, urban people. Which contradicts his world view that white, Protestant people of northern European extraction are racially superior to all of the other people of the world.

The data don't tell you this. For example, the Oregon map implies a much higher rate of risk than is actually the case, because it has such a high suicide rate -- so unless you think that by going to a rural county in Oregon your own risk of suicide is increased, you're making a claim unsupported by the data.

For that matter, I know some counties have high numbers because of hunting accidents, so unless you're going hunting there (and think your geographical location increases the chance you'll have an accident) your risk is not at all indicated by the map. Indeed, given the hundreds of out-of-county and out-of-state hunters who flock to some areas, the actual risk in a rural county may approach zero while people from out of the area are managing to kill themselves and/or others.

 

[Kulindahr]

....uhhhhh...that is what rates are all about.

Smart people would look at rates, gross numbers and other underlying factors wherever something anomalous turns up.

And sometimes pull back to a bigger picture if, for instance rates in individual neighbourhoods, cities and counties suggest that a different metric is more useful.

When I looked at the maps, I was looking at states and even regions in order to do a comparison...not county by county.

You just can't seem to grasp the concept of rates per 100000 population for some reason....or that this is what the amp is illustrating.

It has been clear that you have misunderstood what the map is actually showing and the meaning of what it shows all along.

As I said...beyond hope.

But you will just keep doubling down.

You're talking past each other. He gets what rates mean, and you're not getting his point: the rate of an entire political jurisdiction is irrelevant to the majority of location in that jurisdiction unless the jurisdiction is compact. For example: take a hypothetical Sparse County, with two towns of less than a thousand and two county parks. If all the deaths by gun occur in Badtown, and more precisely in the vicinity of the Bullet Lounge, then the actual rate of death by gun in the county parks is zero; in fact over in Mellowville, the risk is also zero -- but the map is being taken to mean that every square yard of Sparse County is as dangerous as any other. Meanwhile, in Spreadout County next door, almost like clockwork there's a suicide or two every winter holiday season, but not a single bullet has been fired by one person at another, nor have there been any gun accidents since the county was incorporated, so while the reported rate of death by gun is the highest in the state, the actual risk of anyone being shot by someone else is historically zero.

This is just another way to lie by statistics: lump very different data into one set and draw conclusions that only pertain to one segment of that data.

 

[T-Rexx]

The data don't tell you this. For example, the Oregon map implies a much higher rate of risk than is actually the case, because it has such a high suicide rate -- so unless you think that by going to a rural county in Oregon your own risk of suicide is increased, you're making a claim unsupported by the data.

Nonsense. The data quite clearly indicate a higher risk of gun death (including suicide) for rural Oregonians.

If I were to move to Oregon, the only thing that would protect me from a higher risk of gun death (including suicide) would, presumably, be my refusal to own as many guns as my fellow Oregonians.

 

[Kabluey]

But the data don't tell you that. They don't tell you if these were justified self-defense, righteous shootings by cops, or arguments in bars. They don't even tell you if the people actually lived there. And they especially don't tell you whether it was people shooting themselves, which isn't a danger to you at all.

The reason is irrelevant.
People being local or not is irrelevant.
The maps indicate the resultant deaths in a given region, not culpability or cause.

The outcome is the problem, the causes need to be addressed, not the statistics argued.

 

[Kabluey]

I would point out that you are selective and liberal in your enforcement of the prohibition. For instance, I was responding to T-Rexx, who said: "The data imply that white, rural people are more violent that black, urban people."
What is he saying if it is not racial or cultural? My response used the dread "c" word, but it pointed to specific economic policies responsible for the differences, not to any thing "inherent" either racially or culturally.
Does a day ever go by when someone in the forum does not say something nasty about white people with impunity?
It is difficult to discuss poverty, crime, etc without discussing culture. For instance, we recently discussed in other threads, the US list of the most livable countries, a majority of which are traditionally protestant countries. And we saw a map of the countries with the least corruption. Again, they are the traditional Protestant counties. On the other hand we read in the news of female mutilations and honor killings. They are c_______l differences, even if we are prohibited from using the "c" word.

You hide behind a veil of sophistry while describing minorities in broad, ugly strokes.
Play the victim all you like, but there's no tyrannising a majority.

 

[TX-Beau]

You hide behind a veil of sophistry while describing minorities in broad, ugly strokes.
Play the victim all you like, but there's no tyrannising a majority.

I see "Culture" has become the new fig leaf. I bet he got that from Stormfront.

 

[Kabluey]

I see "Culture" has become the new fig leaf. I bet he got that from Stormfront.

Amazing to see so much outright racism caged in the most PC of terms.
I thought conservatives railed against political correctness...

 

[opinterph]

I would point out that you are selective and liberal in your enforcement of the prohibition [against the promotion of cultural prejudice]. For instance, I was responding to T-Rexx, who said: "The data imply that white, rural people are more violent that black, urban people."

In the interest of promoting a free-flowing discussion, I have overlooked a variety of remarks.


It appears to me that T-Rexx was responding to your longstanding inflammatory and baiting rhetoric promoting the cultural superiority of persons of European heritage.

… But, these facts are troubling to [Benvolio], who can only appreciate this in racial terms. The data imply that white, rural people are more violent that black, urban people. Which contradicts his world view that white, Protestant people of northern European extraction are racially superior to all of the other people of the world.

In any event, you should gauge the quality of your own output with reference to the standard of what is acceptable behavior – not what you perceive others to be doing.

 

[rareboy]

I see "Culture" has become the new fig leaf. I bet he got that from Stormfront.

Absolutely.

It is a dog-whistle so loud even I can hear it.

If you want to keep up with Benvolio's talking points...just check in with Stormfront.

 

[rareboy]

Amazing to see so much outright racism caged in the most PC of terms.
I thought conservatives railed against political correctness...

Don Black and David Duke realized that in order to spread their toxic KKK racism it was necessary to re-cast the struggle as pro-white European culture...but most of their die hard acolytes still can't help themselves and still use very non-PC epithets for non-whites.

But 'culture' is definitely the term that they coined.

 

[rareboy]

You're talking past each other. He gets what rates mean, and you're not getting his point: the rate of an entire political jurisdiction is irrelevant to the majority of location in that jurisdiction unless the jurisdiction is compact. For example: take a hypothetical Sparse County, with two towns of less than a thousand and two county parks. If all the deaths by gun occur in Badtown, and more precisely in the vicinity of the Bullet Lounge, then the actual rate of death by gun in the county parks is zero; in fact over in Mellowville, the risk is also zero -- but the map is being taken to mean that every square yard of Sparse County is as dangerous as any other. Meanwhile, in Spreadout County next door, almost like clockwork there's a suicide or two every winter holiday season, but not a single bullet has been fired by one person at another, nor have there been any gun accidents since the county was incorporated, so while the reported rate of death by gun is the highest in the state, the actual risk of anyone being shot by someone else is historically zero.

This is just another way to lie by statistics: lump very different data into one set and draw conclusions that only pertain to one segment of that data.

It seems that you may not understand the purpose of the maps either.

The original map was the aggregate gun deaths. The other two were homicides and suicides.

The maps tell us nothing more or less than the rates of gun deaths per 100000 people.

And it is clear from many of his posts that Benvolio did not understand the data that he was looking at and does not understand the concept of incidence and prevalence.

His concern seemed to be that the map was a liberal conspiracy.

Your concern seems to be about implications around criminal homicide. You don't seem as concerned that the US has an extremely high rate of accidental gun deaths or suicides per 100000 people in different areas.

As I've noted, someone could probably zoom in and plot the specific gun deaths by census sub-division and you might see a different pattern, you can argue that rates of gun deaths per 100000 people aren't even relevant, but if you are a researcher and using maps to identify trends or to lead you to a better understanding of event clusters and possible causation....the maps that were presented here are perfectly reasonable tools.

But please don't try to convince me that Benvolio understood the maps at all.

 

[Benvolio]

In the interest of promoting a free-flowing discussion, I have overlooked a variety of remarks.


It appears to me that T-Rexx was responding to your longstanding inflammatory and baiting rhetoric promoting the cultural superiority of persons of European heritage.



In any event, you should gauge the quality of your own output with reference to the standard of what is acceptable behavior – not what you perceive others to be doing.

So you do indeed have a double standard.

 

[rareboy]

^ Give me a fucking break.

You are allowed to spout some of the most outrageous nonsense in thread after thread without getting checked.

In part, I believe, because you are simply being used as a tool.

A grinding whetstone against which we are permitted to sharpen our own arguments against the rampant racism that exists all around us.

So if you do get checked once in awhile....don't run around whining that there is a double standard. It is as a result of your own egregious thread derailments and obsessive anti-immigration and dog whistle racist posts that you are finally hemmed in here and required to adhere to a stricter set of rules than you have been for the last four years.

It has finally made the forum a more interesting place again to exchange thoughts and arguments on topics.

 

[lambdaboy]

^ Give me a fucking break.

You are allowed to spout some of the most outrageous nonsense in thread after thread without getting checked.

In part, I believe, because you are simply being used as a tool.

A grinding whetstone against which we are permitted to sharpen our own arguments against the rampant racism that exists all around us.

So if you do get checked once in awhile....don't run around whining that there is a double standard. It is as a result of your own egregious thread derailments and obsessive anti-immigration and dog whistle racist posts that you are finally hemmed in here and required to adhere to a stricter set of rules than you have been for the last four years.

It has finally made the forum a more interesting place again to exchange thoughts and arguments on topics.

Do what I did ignore his comments I do!

 

[rareboy]

We can't afford to let his comments go ignored or unchecked.

Too many forums have become over-run with people who spout the most toxic, marginalizing racism. Particularly in this election year, where Trump has basically given free reign for angry white Americans to scapegoat everyone except the 1% who are actually responsible for the rot in the US....it is dangerous to not push back.

In the last election years, we had paid shills who flooded boards with 'anchor baby' and anti-islamic hate in order to try to scare people into accepting the GOP candidate.

We've had actual members of Stormfront exposed on this forum.

So no.

Ignore him all you want, because as we all know, you are never, ever, ever, going to live in the US again....but for those of us who sleep with the elephant in the room....we can't allow Benvolio's toxic nonsense to go unchallenged. It needs to be constantly exposed as the intellectually bankrupt, academically unsupportable and morally repugnant garbage, it really is.

 

[Benvolio]

Do what I did ignore his comments I do!

I have rareboy on ignore, so that would work fine.

 

[rareboy]

Hey Folks....don't forget to quote my posts for Benvolio.

Obviously....he had to see what I'd written when Lambdaboy quoted it.

I'll bet he peeks to see what I've written though.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nonsense. The data quite clearly indicate a higher risk of gun death (including suicide) for rural Oregonians.

If I were to move to Oregon, the only thing that would protect me from a higher risk of gun death (including suicide) would, presumably, be my refusal to own as many guns as my fellow Oregonians.

But that's not what you said -- you said "interaction with other people".

And you repeat the error: the data don't even tell you if it was "rural Oregonians" who were killed. I note again that Harney County is going to have a jump in its reported rate because an outsider was killed recently -- by law enforcement.

So in the data are people who get shot by law enforcement -- not a general risk, either.


BTW, the rejection of rational interpretation of data, i.e. science, here by most people is astounding. It makes evident why it's so easy to lie with statistics.