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

@servant_of_the_anime_avatars

> All I wanted to say is that even within the US the argument "laxer gun laws => more crime" is very hard to make convincingly and there clearly is a lot more going on.

I disagree it is quite easy to make convincingly. You just cant use the method you used to make it.

The method I linked to and described in my response makes a rather convincing case and is statistically sound in its methodology.

The issue isnt that its a hard case to make, the issue is that most people have no clue how to make a sound statistical argument. But I find once it is explained to them how and why you can make such a case WRT guns it becomes apparent and somewhat undeniable to anyone who doesnt hold strong confirmation biases.

@hansw @mur2501 @trinsec

@mtorpey No not misleading, not entirely.

As your link points out the change in reporting practices took place in April, 2002. We are looking for spikes in the years/months following a change in gun laws.

The gun laws in the graph changed in 1989 and 1997. Meaning the change in reporting happened 13 years after the first change in gun laws and 5 years after the second. In both cases we notice a continued upward trend in violence following the gun laws, the second such increase being very significant and lasted the whole of the 5 years up until the change in reporting. After the change in reporting isn't even needed for consideration to prove that point, a 5 year trend is more than enough to establish granger causality in this case.

It should be noted that the 1987 act was very limited in scope, and as such the increase following it was not particularly dramatic, though does show a continued increase. However the 1997 act was much more broad and banned all handguns entirely, which is the primary mode of self defence, and as such shows a very significant effect even in the 5 years before a change in reporting methods.

An explanation I gave a while back as to why gun statistics generally favor the fact that less restrictive gun laws means fewer violence and homicides.

I basically explain why the typical argument of "countries with more guns have more violence" is inherently anti-scientific as it violates fundamental statistical analysis good practices. Instead we would use statistical causality tests for this, not correlation tests. When we actually look at the data from that perspective it generally shows that countries with less restrictive gun laws effectively lowers a nations homicide and violent crime rates.

Reattached the graphs from that post, but best to click the link to the original post where I go into more detail (the graphs are there as well).

#Guns #GunLaws #GunRights

@servant_of_the_anime_avatars

Just as correlation isnt how statisticians test for causation with regards to showing guns have a negative effect we cant use it to show a positive effect either.

So while your counter examples do hint at the fact that the correlation isnt implying causation it is mostly just bad statistical reasoning in the same way trinsec's assertion is.

What you need to argue statistical causality formally is a causation test, the most common and simple of these being the Granger Causality Test.

A causality test does not lot, and should not, compare absolute numbers in the way both of you are doing. What they look at is how a change in the theorized causative property (in this case the strictness of gun laws) is **followed by** a change in the observed property (in this case homicides, deaths, rape cases, or generally violent crimes)... If we find that a change in one often leads to a change in the other in the months that follow (how long into the future you look is important) then you can show causation.

In fact I have previously discussed this very topic with @hansw and you can find my explanation of Granger Causality here as it applies to guns along with some examples of it being demonstrated in several major countries that had changes in gun policy. The evidence is strong that stricter gun policies lead to more homicide and violence. I've attached the images from that post here all of which show examples of Granger Causality demonstrating a causative link between stricter gun laws and more homicide/violence.

https://qoto.org/@freemo/103766692274567523

#Guns #GunLaws #GunRights

@mur2501 @trinsec

@trinsec

The truth is it is the chinese governments fault. While that doesnt excuse any violence taken against asians, it is valid all the same. While I'm sure there was some violence it seems quite rare, I've heard of no such examples personally but I'm sure there are some isolated cases. But focusing the plame on china as a nation for its policies and handling is entierly valid and quite common when we name viruses anyway.

The real reason people are so opposed to the term, of course, is because trump used it and people love to make everything trump does 1000x worse than it is (I saw this as someone who thinks trump is pretty bad even without the exagerating). So the moment he uttered that phrase it because a cause of the left to make it seem as evil as possible just as a matter of course.

Even the chinese refer to it as the "wuhan flu"

@rlamacraft

@trumpet

I hear ya, no worried its trying times for everyone. The important part is we caught and got back on track. No worries, no hard feelings, its trying times. Look after yourself, and dont stress, no worries on this end.

@Demosthenes

@trumpet

Agreed, I meant no agro, Demosthenes meant no agro, and I have no doubt you meant no agro. No worries, and im glad we can all get along. It was mostly just some idle chit chat that came across the wrong way, it happens, the internet is a hostile place, puts us on the defensive sometimes. But luckily we all recognized it was just some good mannered conversation

@Demosthenes

@trumpet

I dont think anyone needed you to do that. I think it was just an intellectual insight on some phrasing. Most people like to comment things and point out interesting observations (interesting to them) to strike up conversation. I probably would have done the same in their shoes.

Criticism doesn't mean something negative, (though sadly on the internet it often can be), its usually just intended as a starting point for a discussion.

@Demosthenes

@trumpet

Of course, but I dont think that was Demosthenes intent, to tell you how to run your instance. In fact they seemed to be more interested in pointing out the inaccuracy of your wording than to actually have any complaint about your rules themselves. I do not see demosthenes criticising your rules at any point, simply nit picking the language.

Obviously it seems like just a miscommunication and you happened to read it that way. Obviously given the hostility in the mastodon community I can understand your defensiveness but really, its not needed here, I doubt that was their intent.

@Demosthenes

@trumpet

yes that is in line with our rules, and neither Demosthenes nor myself have said anything at anypoint to suggest otherwise.

@Demosthenes

@trumpet

Yes I am the QOTO admin... what exactly is the issue here.. Seems @Demosthenes is saying "its ok and even right to limit speech in certain circumstances, but it can not be described as complete freedom of expression if those limits exist, even if they happen to be good and constructive limits"

it seems then that trumpet took offense to this remark. Either Trumpet simply misunderstood what was being said and wrongly assumed something worse than what was being implied, or I simply dont understand the situation at hand.

I would say freedom of speech as a legal principle only guarantees your right to be free to hold opinions, it does not give one the freedom to say anything they like. However freedom of speech as a legal principle is also not complete and absolute freedom of expression as the term may suggest, as a principle it doesn't guarantee all forms of utterance, for example it doesnt give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.

Anyway all that said I have no clue why there is an issue here at all over what was said and hoping trumpet just misread something.

@Demosthenes

@trinsec

Don't need to take my word at all, like I said we have actual statistical tests for causation. My opinion is based on the data not my gut.

> From the examples you've given, it sounds like we'd better put more effort in mental health access and all that other stuff instead. That sounds much more fruitful in the long term.

There is no instead, every item I listed. guns included, all improve the numbers. No need or reason to pick one over the other, adopting **all** the methods that work give you the best results

@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501

@trinsec

As a Data Scientist I can tell you right off the bad this is loaded with more statistical fallacies than I care to count.

In statistics we do not draw cause and effect conclusions from correlation, we use causality tests to assert causality.

The fallacy in your thinking is the idea that if guns show an improvement in the number of rapes, that it must also be the most dominant factor in rapes. For example you completely ignore mental health access, poverty leading to poor home environments, greater ethnic and religious diversity coupled with greater levels of racism, culural ethics in how men treat women. Most of these are far more dominant causes in the frequency of rape attempts than a gun, simply because a gun improves the numbers, even if it improves them significantly in no way even remotely implies that the places with the most guns must therefore have the least rape, particularly if your sample-size of countries is rather small. when it comes to gun ownership

@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501

@hansw In case you see someone getting raped, incase someone pulls a knife on you with the intent to kill, incase another hitler invades, In case a maniac with a truck starts trying to kill people by running over them.

The reasons are endless why one might potentially need a gun. Much like a nationwide cell outage these sorts of things may happen once in a life time, if that, so they are nothing to live in fear of. But again it isnt about fear, its about being responsible just in case.