🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@kinyutaka

I am not criticising your lack of detail, im criticising your use of data and interpritation that is in direct contradiction of valid statistical analysis.. its the invalidity of your technique in question, not the brevity of it.. it would be equally invalid at any length since the premise itself is known bad analysis.

@marq@toot.community @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@DoesntExist

Funny how your spitting out all these quotastions of things no one ever said.. and so beautifully passive aggressive and bad-faith, not to mention toxic... its a work of beauty really, congrats. Thanks for being a waste of electricity on the internet, wonderful.

@lawnikky @georgetakei

@Cleopatra@c.im

Nope, never said that either... you could alwyas try a good-ffaith discussion and politely (without hidden subtext of passive aggression) what my opinion is... I will very directly tell you as long as you give me the impression you are wotth my time to talk to and will have a mature good-faith discussion.

@marq@toot.community @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@kinyutaka

So as a professional statistician I was very clear to state that the critiea is valid analysis, and i pointed out that to do so you'd have to use granger causality or similar techniques.

Is what you just described granger causality or a valid way of analyzing the data based on how experts are trained who know how to analyze data?

Obviously the answer is no, but what I find telling is why did you try to spit out numbers, which i assume were cherry picked (though maybe not intentionally) and not actually ask what i meant by granger causality and try to first learn, objectively, why I suggested it as one of the few forms of proper analysis in this context?

@marq@toot.community @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@realcaseyrollins

Maybe.. what if their kid has mental health issues? What if their kid was traumatized by someone at school and has caused a psychotic break... I dont think these incidents are as straight forward as "the parent didnt teach their child to be a good person".. psychology is a great deal more complex than that. Good people with good morals who have a predisposition or are just traumatized enough can do horrible things because, well, they can be insane in those moments.

@joelle

> Firearms are the number one cause of death for kids. It's a combination of murder, suicide, and accidents. Guns make all of these more likely.

Technically true, though not contrary to anything I said either. I was talking about school shooting, not gun deaths overall, which is a different but important topic.

So while this is moving the goal post fallacy for hte conversation it doesnt mean it isnt relevant as its own side topic to discuss it is.

The issue here is far more complex. For starters, I am of the unpopular opinion that suicide, like all bodily autonomy, is a sacred right. We should be trying to prevent it by providing good mental health access as wella s healthy home environments but we should not be trying to take away the means of suicide. As tragic as it is, every person has a right to determine what they want to do witht heir own body and that includes suicide.

Next once we get to murder with a firearm then it becomes a bit of a misframing of the problem. What we want to do is reduce the murder of children, that includes by any means whether its knife, gun, or strangling, anys solution we pick cant decrease one type of death and increase the other, so we need to look at the whole picture. When we do it paints a picture that we dont have a "gun problem" we have a "kids killing kids problem". The question we have to ask is how do we reduce that. Doesnt mean guns dont have a place in that conversation, but it is self-defeating to get tunnelvision if we analyze that aspect of the problem in isolation.

@stevesilberman

@EvilK

Interesting, good to note.

@trinsec

@realcaseyrollins

Sounds like it will encourage parents to stop having kids because kids are too much of a liability... I can approve this idea on those grounds alone :)

@TwistedEagle So you are trying to bring awareness to the fact that Queer people are usually brutally bullied and therefore results in many mental health issues amongst Queer groups?

@kinyutaka

> Democrats "aren't doing anything" because Republicans won't let them.

Ahh the old "everything is republicans fault, especially the things that the democrats do"... yea sorry but thats a lie people tell themselves because they drank the kool-aid

> And Republicans are actively trying to make things worse by passing laws that make it easy for teens to get guns.

Yup, and while that isnt solving school shootings, it also isnt making it worse.. at least according to the numbers.. higher access to guns (when properly analyzed using valid techniques like granger causality analysis) doesnt actually result in more murders of children, in fact, the numbers show it reduces it.

I do of course understand the common sense reaction to "banning guns will fix the problem".. but sadly common sense often fails us, and in this situation it most surely does.

@marq@toot.community @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@trinsec I actually dont know how long the warning is that you "feel" it on average.. I was in a lightening strike once (not actually hit but a few feet away) and I felt it about a minute before hand, maybe a bit more.

@J12t My kind of party, count me in!

@SpaceLifeForm

>It is still an apple and oranges comparison.

It is absolutely an apples and orange comparison. As I pointed out this is about showing how astronomically rare this events are.. it is also about showing that with lightening striking kids being twice as likely that we should prioritize preventing that over preventing school shootings.. yet thats not what we do, you hear about school shootings every day and the outrage yet no one is outraged we arent doing anything about all the kids gettign struck by lightening.

> These MCIs are preventable, but we really have no control over thunderstorms at all.
>
> We can make the odds better.

Thunderstorms arent preventable but lightening strikes absolutely are. In fact its much cheaper, easier, and straightforward to prevent lightening strikes than it is to prevent school shootings.

1) you can feel a lightening strike coming minutes before hand. You can respond to this by taking certain actions (running away, lying down, seeking shelter). Better education on this would help prevent

2) More, taller, or better grounding lightening rods are well proven to prevent lightening strikes. Investing in lightening rod infrastructure would go a long way to reduce these numbers significantly and is far easier and straight forward than any solutions we could come up with to prevent school shootings. Not to mention cheaper.

@peterdrake

Absolutely.. which is also a much more involv4ed topic.

For starters I have absolutely no desire to prevent means of suicide. While I do wish to prevent the desire to commit suicide with better mental health and better home environments I am of the opinion that a person has a right to bodily autonomy and that includes suicide. As tragic as it is every person has a right to commit suicide and while we do want to prevent the numbers through mental health what we dont want to do is take away the means of suicide, because in the end that is everyones sacred right IMO (And yes i know many will disagree).

Now when we talk about murder thats even more questionable because any serious and object statistical analysis (which would have to use granger causality or a similar causality test) very clearly shows that banning or restricting access to guns almost always results in an increase in overall murder and violent crimes. So while murder in all forms, including with guns, should be prevented, if we actually try to ban or restrict guns you are doing the exact opposite of your intent.

@trinsec

@SpaceLifeForm That was **not** what I said... I said the chance of a child being struck by lightening in a day... I did not say the lightening strike would happen while they were indoors... could happen on the way to school, on the way home, during recess, or any other time of the day.

@strawd Yup, it sure would be. But the chance of even just being at a school during a school shooting is a very rare occurance.. more common sure, but still safe to assert the fact that it is an extremely rare event no matter how you slice it for any child to be directly negativly effected by a school shooting.

@lawnikky

"sesnative eyes".. I hope this isnt a red flag that your coming in with the intent ot have a bad-faith discussion and generally be a rude asshate.. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe im over reading this, but, try to not waste mytime wiht toxic passivce aggressive shit please

Now to answer your question... sadly, thats not what the numbers show. Sadly, very few people are educated enough or dig deep enough, or for that matter objective enough, to really understand this. Especially when its a topic with a hell of a lot of bias and misinformation.

But the truth is, there is a very consistent pattern when you apply proper statistical analysis (read: granger causality test and other tests that are appropriate). In the overwhelming majority of cases we see time and time again, banning a type of gun, or guns more generally almost always results in a significant increase in homicide and crime rates. Rates that never really recover to a point where there is an improvement, even 20 years later.

While I understand the reasoning, may even seem like common sense, but as a research scientist myself I go with the numbers even if it disagrees with my assumptions.

@DoesntExist @georgetakei