Another mass shooting - largest in a good while, by a few victims

[Crazy Eddie]

In the rate of violent crime, yes. The homicide rate doesn't go up AT ALL, and the rate of gun-related homicides drops at a rate no longer in line with the broader trend.

Also, don't think I'm not fully ware that you are making this statement from a foggy memory of a single chart you saw one time and are not looking at any actual data nor have you researched this topic in depth. You're basically drawing detailed conclusions from a meme and then supplying bullshit to justify it. I'm referring to the five or six studies conducted since then that I have saved on my hard drive; I have the numbers right in front of me, and I'm telling you you're wrong.

It was already decreasing, it continued to decrease.

The rate of gun-related homicide decreased at a far faster rate after the ban. The overall homicide rate continued to decline.

I was talking about the gun homicide rate. It blips up just before the ban, drops and then reverts to the original trend line.

No, it really doesn't. The "blip" you mention is absent from most data charts and is only included if you factor in the Port Arthur massacre AND exclude suicides from the overall rate (most Australian crime data does not). Nor does it revert to the "original trend line," as the rate of gun homicides drops by 10 to 15% while the overall homicide rate drops by 7% (where previous years saw either mild increases or 4 to 8% drops in both rates). The gun homicide rate continued to drop by 10% or more for succeeding years until it reached and remained at an extremely low rate, hovering between 0 and 2 per 100,000 people.

the base trend line is the left side of a parabola rather than straight.

"Trend lines" are not parabolas. Unless you're a bullshitter.

The problem is your misinterpreting what I said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the rate of violent crime, yes. The homicide rate doesn't go up AT ALL, and the rate of gun-related homicides drops at a rate no longer in line with the broader trend.

Also, don't think I'm not fully ware that you are making this statement from a foggy memory of a single chart you saw one time and are not looking at any actual data nor have you researched this topic in depth. You're basically drawing detailed conclusions from a meme and then supplying bullshit to justify it. I'm referring to the five or six studies conducted since then that I have saved on my hard drive; I have the numbers right in front of me, and I'm telling you you're wrong.

It was already decreasing, it continued to decrease.

The rate of gun-related homicide decreased at a far faster rate after the ban. The overall homicide rate continued to decline.

I was talking about the gun homicide rate. It blips up just before the ban, drops and then reverts to the original trend line.

No, it really doesn't. The "blip" you mention is absent from most data charts and is only included if you factor in the Port Arthur massacre AND exclude suicides from the overall rate (most Australian crime data does not). Nor does it revert to the "original trend line," as the rate of gun homicides drops by 10 to 15% while the overall homicide rate drops by 7% (where previous years saw either mild increases or 4 to 8% drops in both rates). The gun homicide rate continued to drop by 10% or more for succeeding years until it reached and remained at an extremely low rate, hovering between 0 and 2 per 100,000 people.

Oh, I get it--you're taking credit for the decline in the suicide rate.

the base trend line is the left side of a parabola rather than straight.

"Trend lines" are not parabolas. Unless you're a bullshitter.

It's probably a more complex curve but it looks like a parabola. It's what you tend to get as a value approaches an asymptote.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In the rate of violent crime, yes. The homicide rate doesn't go up AT ALL, and the rate of gun-related homicides drops at a rate no longer in line with the broader trend.

Also, don't think I'm not fully ware that you are making this statement from a foggy memory of a single chart you saw one time and are not looking at any actual data nor have you researched this topic in depth. You're basically drawing detailed conclusions from a meme and then supplying bullshit to justify it. I'm referring to the five or six studies conducted since then that I have saved on my hard drive; I have the numbers right in front of me, and I'm telling you you're wrong.

It was already decreasing, it continued to decrease.

The rate of gun-related homicide decreased at a far faster rate after the ban. The overall homicide rate continued to decline.

I was talking about the gun homicide rate. It blips up just before the ban, drops and then reverts to the original trend line.

No, it really doesn't. The "blip" you mention is absent from most data charts and is only included if you factor in the Port Arthur massacre AND exclude suicides from the overall rate (most Australian crime data does not). Nor does it revert to the "original trend line," as the rate of gun homicides drops by 10 to 15% while the overall homicide rate drops by 7% (where previous years saw either mild increases or 4 to 8% drops in both rates). The gun homicide rate continued to drop by 10% or more for succeeding years until it reached and remained at an extremely low rate, hovering between 0 and 2 per 100,000 people.

Oh, I get it--you're taking credit for the decline in the suicide rate.

That too, although the suicide rate in Australia was not actually high enough to explain the data all on its own (two of the six studies I have addressed this directly and a third included suicides in the overall data because they didn't have solid numbers on the rate as a separate thing).

the base trend line is the left side of a parabola rather than straight.

"Trend lines" are not parabolas. Unless you're a bullshitter.

It's probably a more complex curve but it looks like a parabola.

Trend lines are not curves either. They do not look like parabolas, curves, question marks or loops. Trend lines are lines that denote changes over time.

Statistical curves are functions of change that depend on a complex interaction of parameters and suggests that certain changes to those parameters have different effects depending on the magnitude of change relative to other factors. In this case, if the so-called "trend line" really is a curve of some kind, then there is a point at which the rate of change in the homicide rate should actually accelerate or decelerate as conditions reach that part of the curve. In those circumstances, you cannot actually predict what effect banning firearms would have on the curve; it might change the function altogether, or it might just accelerate a trend that already prevails.

But you're trying to make the case that they were already experiencing a long term trend of decreasing violence; unless you can accurately project where the trend would have gone WITHOUT the gun ban, you're just constructing an elaborate model to fit your interpretation of the data anyway. Such a model is, by definition, unfalsifiable and on closer examination devolves into bullshit.

 

[RavenSky]

"After learning the news of a mass shooting in Las Vegas, the deadliest in United States history, James wonders what is keeping America from taking actual steps towards gun control and catching up with the rest of the developed world."

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYi1YUNOguk[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ZiprHead]

Shooter was a Trump supporter, but that's about it.

 

[RavenSky]

Shooter was a Trump supporter, but that's about it.

Investigators have been able to compile a pretty thorough psychological profile on Paddock, Lombardo said, gleaning from interviews that he was narcissistic and obsessed with his status as one of Las Vegas's elite.

Gee, who does that sound like?

One of the comments:

Paddock was most definitely in contact with an extremist groups. He bought a gun from Skipper Speece the day he checked into the Mandalay Bay. Skipper Speece is the former body guard of Cliven Bundy. Cliven Bundy's group is considered a dangerous domestic terror threat according to the FBI. His group is based in the Mesquite, NV area. Paddock could have lived anywhere in the world and chose a house on a hill at the end of a cul-de-sac in Bundy's backyard. A house on a hill at the end of a cul-de-sac is the perfect place for a armed standoff with the Feds.
I really hope the investigators are doing their due diligence in investigating the Cliven Bundy connection.