MNGunTalk.com

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/re ... shootings/

At least 17 states, most of them led by Republicans, introduced bills this year trying to make it easier to buy, own and carry weapons, providing guns to teachers and declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis. This continues a trend of Republican legislatures and governors increasing access to guns.
...
We don’t know much about the effects most of these specific laws will have, because longstanding roadblocks on gun-related research mean we don’t know a lot about what kinds of gun laws prevent shootings, especially mass shootings. More than 20 years of research has found that increased availability of guns is associated with higher rates of homicide, and a 2014 study in the Journal of Urban Health found that a repeal of Missouri’s permit requirement for handgun purchases contributed to a 25 percent increase in firearm homicide rates in the five years that followed.

Great article from FiveThirtyEight, like almost everything they post. Lots of fact driven, heavily referenced points. Their primary focus is to report on polling of all sorts, using all kinds of high end data sciencey techniques. I highly recommend their website to deep dive on various topics.

FYI: I have my masters in computer science with a focus on big data/AI/ML, so I've done a ton of work like this in the past few years and can vouch for the quality of their work.

GIGO.

The journal of urban health is a nonissue in my field.

(Medicine).

The reason there is so little public health gun research now is because the CDC and NIH got caught making up their research to get a pro gun control result.

Markemp wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-states-expanding-gun-rights-mass-shootings/

At least 17 states, most of them led by Republicans, introduced bills this year trying to make it easier to buy, own and carry weapons, providing guns to teachers and declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis. This continues a trend of Republican legislatures and governors increasing access to guns.
...
We don’t know much about the effects most of these specific laws will have, because longstanding roadblocks on gun-related research mean we don’t know a lot about what kinds of gun laws prevent shootings, especially mass shootings. More than 20 years of research has found that increased availability of guns is associated with higher rates of homicide, and a 2014 study in the Journal of Urban Health found that a repeal of Missouri’s permit requirement for handgun purchases contributed to a 25 percent increase in firearm homicide rates in the five years that followed.

Great article from FiveThirtyEight, like almost everything they post. Lots of fact driven, heavily referenced points. Their primary focus is to report on polling of all sorts, using all kinds of high end data sciencey techniques. I highly recommend their website to deep dive on various topics.

FYI: I have my masters in computer science with a focus on big data/AI/ML, so I've done a ton of work like this in the past few years and can vouch for the quality of their work.

What we do know is that their is one party trying to take away gun rights and they just succeed in this state.

and a 2014 study in the Journal of Urban Health found that a repeal of Missouri’s permit requirement for handgun purchases contributed to a 25 percent increase in firearm homicide rates in the five years that followed.

If there were any creditable data to support this, the left and their willing accomplices in the old guard media, would be screaming about it 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

But thanks for the good laugh.

Markemp wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-states-expanding-gun-rights-mass-shootings/
FYI: I have my masters in computer science with a focus on big data/AI/ML, so I've done a ton of work like this in the past few years and can vouch for the quality of their work.

I also have MS in applied mathematics and computer science, from one of the best Soviet technical colleges of the time. Where your claimed area of expertise, big data, artificial intelligence, or machine learning apply to the problem at hand, I fail to see; it looks like you are just throwing in buzzwords. Neither does my area of study apply, except I studied some statistics - but this article has little to do with statistics, it's rather an exercise in rhetoric; rich references are themselves compilations of other sources - some as old as 1995. If there is a verifiable and falsifiable statistical research referenced somewhere, it's hidden too deep for my quick look. The opening statement is fabulous: "mass shootings are on the rise." Mass shootings remain a statistically insignificant cause of death, on par with lightning strikes.

No, I cannot agree this highly emotional article is an example of quality work. Not even as a propaganda work, I doubt it can convince anyone who does not already believe its thesis.

The only grain of reason I noticed was in relation to suicide by a gun - which, as rightly noted, represents the vast majority of gun-related deaths; but it was immediately poisoned by the prescribed treatment by red flag laws, which are a blatant violation of any due process. North of the border, in Canada, we can witness how the same government that confiscates guns is also pushing euthanasia; which, according to my calculations, became the sixth leading cause of death there, surpassing diabetes, influenza, and unassisted suicide; I can't believe these people sincerely care about suicide prevention.

Markemp wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-states-expanding-gun-rights-mass-shootings/
FYI: I have my masters in computer science with a focus on big data/AI/ML, so I've done a ton of work like this in the past few years and can vouch for the quality of their work.

Wait, are you suggesting the article was written by an AI?

This might be true or it might not: (heck, doesn't that describe EVERYTHING?) but I heard about a college statistics group asking incoming freshmen to state their political affiliation and their parents' political affiliation. If they asked for the student's political affiliation FIRST, it most likely matched the parents' political affiliation. If they asked for the student's parents' political affiliation first then their political affiliation didn't match. The students very much desired to be seen as independent of their parents so just the order of asking the same questions skewed the results.

Lies, DAMNABLE LIES and STATISTICS!

Markemp wrote:FYI: I have my masters in computer science with a focus on big data/AI/ML, so I've done a ton of work like this in the past few years and can vouch for the quality of their work.

THAT'S most likely the problem here. Did you have any right leaning professors? Were you educated? Or indoctrinated?

I suggest you investigate the #walkaway movement. Tulsi Gabbard is a good role model. She went from a leadership role and presidential candidate in the Democrat party to a critic. Here's her epiphany on the Second Amendment.

I did not read the article, just the part posted here. Was there a mention of decreased violence in Blue states where laws are getting more strict? If not, how was the perceived “root cause” tied to the perceived “effect” by the researchers?

Jackpine Savage wrote:

Markemp wrote:FYI: I have my masters in computer science with a focus on big data/AI/ML, so I've done a ton of work like this in the past few years and can vouch for the quality of their work.

THAT'S most likely the problem here. Did you have any right leaning professors? Were you educated? Or indoctrinated?

It was a computer science program at a publicly funded land grant state school. Are you suggesting that liberal indoctrination is so engrained into STEM programs that even engineers are compromised?

That's a bit of a stretch. I've had exactly one class in my years of college that I would consider even remotely ideologically driven, and it was a linguistics class unrelated to my degrees. In 8 years of college, I never once heard from a professor what their political affiliation was, even in that linguistics class.

It's a lot easier to have productive conversations when you don't resort to only using logical fallacies as your sole means of discussion.

IvanTheTerribleShot wrote:

Markemp wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-states-expanding-gun-rights-mass-shootings/
FYI: I have my masters in computer science with a focus on big data/AI/ML, so I've done a ton of work like this in the past few years and can vouch for the quality of their work.

. Where your claimed area of expertise, big data, artificial intelligence, or machine learning apply to the problem at hand, I fail to see; it looks like you are just throwing in buzzwords. Neither does my area of study apply, except I studied some statistics - but this article has little to do with statistics, it's rather an exercise in rhetoric; rich references are themselves compilations of other sources - some as old as 1995. If there is a verifiable and falsifiable statistical research referenced somewhere, it's hidden too deep for my quick look. The opening statement is fabulous: "mass shootings are on the rise." Mass shootings remain a statistically insignificant cause of death, on par with lightning strikes.

I was referring to the overall work the site does. One of the nice things about 538 is they publish links to the actual studies, as opposed to a link to a Forbes blog that discusses the article, as well as release the data that they train their models on.

And yes, mass shooting are on the rise. They aren't a significant number of deaths in America, but we're big boys and girls. We can work on several problems at the same time.

Markemp wrote:

IvanTheTerribleShot wrote:

Markemp wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-states-expanding-gun-rights-mass-shootings/
FYI: I have my masters in computer science with a focus on big data/AI/ML, so I've done a ton of work like this in the past few years and can vouch for the quality of their work.

. Where your claimed area of expertise, big data, artificial intelligence, or machine learning apply to the problem at hand, I fail to see; it looks like you are just throwing in buzzwords. Neither does my area of study apply, except I studied some statistics - but this article has little to do with statistics, it's rather an exercise in rhetoric; rich references are themselves compilations of other sources - some as old as 1995. If there is a verifiable and falsifiable statistical research referenced somewhere, it's hidden too deep for my quick look. The opening statement is fabulous: "mass shootings are on the rise." Mass shootings remain a statistically insignificant cause of death, on par with lightning strikes.

I was referring to the overall work the site does. One of the nice things about 538 is they publish links to the actual studies, as opposed to a link to a Forbes blog that discusses the article, as well as release the data that they train their models on.

And yes, mass shooting are on the rise. They aren't a significant number of deaths in America, but we're big boys and girls. We can work on several problems at the same time.

So bigger problems exist then.

Markemp wrote:I was referring to the overall work the site does. One of the nice things about 538 is they publish links to the actual studies, as opposed to a link to a Forbes blog that discusses the article, as well as release the data that they train their models on.

In this case, though, 8 think 538 is making the same mistake you are - they are assuming "peer reviewed study" means the same thing, from one field to the next.

It does not.

The standards of peer review in Public Health are notoriously lax.

Markemp wrote:I was referring to the overall work the site does. One of the nice things about 538 is they publish links to the actual studies, as opposed to a link to a Forbes blog that discusses the article, as well as release the data that they train their models on.

Then why do you present this piece of ... work which is clearly not up to the standard?

Markemp wrote:And yes, mass shooting are on the rise. They aren't a significant number of deaths in America, but we're big boys and girls. We can work on several problems at the same time.

Wholeheartedly with you here. Let's outlaw atmospheric electricity and invest in meteorite defense. And something must be done about the epidemic of auto erotic strangulation (what, it's actually claiming quite a few lives.)

Markemp wrote:It's a lot easier to have productive conversations when you don't resort to only using logical fallacies as your sole means of discussion.

I applaud you again. Appeal to accomplishment is a logical fallacy, right?

IvanTheTerribleShot wrote:Wholeheartedly with you here. Let's outlaw atmospheric electricity and invest in meteorite defense. And something must be done about the epidemic of auto erotic strangulation (what, it's actually claiming quite a few lives.)

Sounds good to me. Let's review regulations on ensuring buildings have proper protection against lightning strikes, and maybe create a program to help get non-compliant homes the resources they need to become compliant. And I think we are already investing heavily in meteor defense. NASA just slammed a small moon near Mars to see if we can alter its trajectory. I have no problem with investing more money in this area.

I'm afraid you have done a lot more research on auto erotic strangulation than I have though. Can you post some of the research you've done on this topic? I'm sure the forum would love to know more about this epidemic.