Obama supports ban on assault rifles

[19nate79]

^^^ Prescription drugs have more to do with it than all of the above. Watch the movie I embedded. Anyone with children needs to watch it.

only a retard would think that altering brain chemistry in lieu of fixing the underlying problem is ok. ssris are serious business and yet everyone jumped on them. what harm could altering seratonin possibly have right? i mean sure we made mdma illegal, but this is fine. it affects the seratonin differently. go team!

[Wahoo08]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-gun-murders/

Those damn facts!!!!1

Come on Juggs..... I think ours views on gun regulation are pretty similar, but that chart doesn't show **** and you know it.

[Sofargone]

only a retard would think that altering brain chemistry in lieu of fixing the underlying problem is ok. ssris are serious business and yet everyone jumped on them. what harm could altering seratonin possibly have right? i mean sure we made mdma illegal, but this is fine. it affects the seratonin differently. go team!

If only they would legalize mdma once again. Pharmaceutical grade Ecstacy was the shiznit.

[Spectre]

Come on Juggs..... I think ours views on gun regulation are pretty similar, but that chart doesn't show **** and you know it.

That's the point. It's even in the quote I posted. "there is no correlation."

[Wahoo08]

That's the point. It's even in the quote I posted. "there is no correlation."

Which is doesnt show at all.

You are trying to argue that a single variable (video game consumption) correlates with another variable (gun-related murders) without attempting to isolate the initial variable. For instance, if your own argument is correct (that gun laws DO have an effect on gun related murders), it is feasable that the stricter gun laws of the other foreign nations listed, act as a suppressing variable. In effect, they may be masking a correlation that does exist.

It's a problem that we see over and over and over and over again- a journalist sees a "study" and butchers the hell out of it in their article, drawing conclusions that those involved in the study never claim to have concluded. Hell, the journalist even admits he's assuming that video game consumption is consistent across these nations. Assuming??? Seems like a pretty damn important piece of information to assume.

[Spectre]

Which is doesnt show at all.

You are trying to argue that a single variable (video game consumption) correlates with another variable (gun-related murders) without attempting to isolate the initial variable. For instance, if your own argument is correct (that gun laws DO have an effect on gun related murders), it is feasable that the stricter gun laws of the other foreign nations listed, act as a suppressing variable. In effect, they may be masking a correlation that does exist.

It's a problem that we see over and over and over and over again- a journalist sees a "study" and butchers the hell out of it in their article, drawing conclusions that those involved in the study never claim to have concluded. Hell, the journalist even admits he's assuming that video game consumption is consistent across these nations. Assuming??? Seems like a pretty damn important piece of information to assume.

It would seem more important to know the difference between correlation and causation. For example: It's possible that all causation traces back to God. However there is not statistical evidence that god exists. Therefore there is no statistical correlation between the presence of God, and anything. This does not mean the absence of that correlation is definite 100% proof of the negative.

It does however mean that good public policy is crafted in accordance with available evidence.

[Wahoo08]

It would seem more important to know the difference between correlation and causation. For example: It's possible that all causation traces back to God. However there is not statistical evidence that god exists. Therefore there is no statistical correlation between the presence of God, and anything. This does not mean the absence of that correlation is definite 100% proof of the negative.

It does however mean that good public policy is crafted in accordance with available evidence.

The chart you posted says next to nothing about a correlation (for reasons I already stated), let alone causality.

I'm all for making making "good public policy....in accordance with available evidence," but I also don't think we need to be so eager to win a debate that we start to lower our standards in regards to the 'evidence' we choose to use.

[Spectre]

The chart you posted says next to nothing about a correlation (for reasons I already stated), let alone causality.

I'm all for making making "good public policy....in accordance with available evidence," but I also don't think we need to be so eager to win a debate that we start to lower our standards in regards to the 'evidence' we choose to use.

I think you're a bit confused. The chart speaks strictly to a lack of statistical correlation. You responded with a claim of causation (which you called correlation).

With an assist from wiki:

In statistics, dependence refers to any statistical relationship between two random variables or two sets of data. Correlation refers to any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence.

By definition, when you've started to bring in additional variables, you're no longer talking about correlation.

[Wahoo08]

I think you're a bit confused. The chart speaks strictly to a lack of statistical correlation. You responded with a claim of causation (which you called correlation).

With an assist from wiki:


By definition, when you've started to bring in additional variables, you're no longer talking about correlation.

No I didn't.

I gave an example of how it is possible that other variables could be suppressing a positive correlation between gun-related murders and video game consumption (and just to reiterate, I never actually claimed a correlation between these two exists). However, even if that were the case, correlation (even a positive correlation) does NOT equal causality. Nowhere in any of my posts did I even attempt to speak on any possible causality between the variables.

If you said that the chart does not show a correlation, you'd be correct. But when you said:

That's the point. It's even in the quote I posted. "there is no correlation."

you are simply wrong. There is a difference between the chart not showing something, versus showing that it doesn't exist.

[just Brian]

Sorry if this is a repost. I just found this on another mma site.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/