Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[The Grand Nudger]

Interesting, isn't it. Even as violent crime decreases, year over year, decade over decade.....terrorist action by people who fear a near future criminal dystopia keep shooting shit up and grooming kids to shoot shit up.

[arewethereyet]

Do you have evidence that any of this is true?

And, for the record, ‘criminal behaviour’ and ‘violent crime’ are not always the same thing.

Boru

Well, I am quite sure the violent crime in the US has decreased, as why else would the reported crime decrease? Now, whether the violent crime in the UK has really increased, or whether it is just reported to the police more, that's harder to tell.

According to this report, violent crime decreased by a whopping 1%.  Guess that's better than a sharp stick in the eye but I will hold back on celebrating till the number is a little higher.  **Please note that homicide rates increased.

FBI Reports Slight Decrease in US Violent Crime (voanews.com)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh really? Keep in mind that, to the vast majority of doctors at the time, the Semmelweis'es work seemed like a terrible study. It seemed to use bad methodology and to arrive at pseudoscientific-sounding conclusions. Levy commented both that the methodology is bad (he said: "Why wasn't a simpler and more convincing experiment performed, to simply stop all the anatomical work?") and that the conclusions are implausible (that "implausibly small" particles from a corpse can turn you into a corpse if they touch your blood, and that washing your hands with some substances solves that). So, was it the right conclusion that Semmelweis was incompetent? Of course not.

You clearly missed my point in your chase to find an "aha!" moment.

You cannot say that because a study is the only study (or "estimate" in this case) in a field doesn't mean that the information it claims to present is accurate.

Which is basically what I said.

You sure don't seem to acknowledge the serious difficulties you must confront when trying to use his "estimates". Instead you simply go back to it time and again as the only authoritative "study" -- which it is not. It's all much of a vaguery.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Semmelweis'es study was the only study available back then about the causes of puerperal fever. Thus, the right thing to do was to accept its conclusions, rather than to complain about its shortcomings.

Wrong. The correct course of action is to recognize the paucity of information, and work to generate more data in order to solidify or disprove the hypothesis. That is what science does.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Suppose - just suppose - the only available study at the time conclude that the best way to reduce surgical infection was for the surgeon to coat his hands in rancid goat dung. Should that conclusion have been accepted?

Boru

In that unlikely situation, I think it should have been accepted. That's what "evidence-based medicine" means, right?

So, you’re prepared to accept the results of any study as long as it’s the ONLY study. That way lies madness.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

In that unlikely situation, I think it should have been accepted. That's what "evidence-based medicine" means, right?

So, you’re prepared to accept the results of any study as long as it’s the ONLY study. That way lies madness.

Boru

Basically, yes. Of course, we can make an exception if the study has a particularly bad methodology and its conclusions are very implausible. But that's not the case with the Gary Kleck's study. Gary Kleck's study has a better methodology than my latest, and by far the best I made, study in social sciences does, and probably better methodology than any study in comparative linguistics or linguistic typology can possibly have. Gary Kleck's methodology cannot be the reason to reject his study and rely solely on intuition.

[arewethereyet]

So, you’re prepared to accept the results of any study as long as it’s the ONLY study. That way lies madness.

Boru

Basically, yes. Of course, we can make an exception if the study has a particularly bad methodology and its conclusions are very implausible. But that's not the case with the Gary Kleck's study. Gary Kleck's study has a better methodology than my latest, and by far the best I made, study in social sciences does, and probably better methodology than any study in comparative linguistics or linguistic typology can possibly have. Gary Kleck's methodology cannot be the reason to reject his study and rely solely on intuition.

You really seem obsessed with this Kleck person.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, you’re prepared to accept the results of any study as long as it’s the ONLY study. That way lies madness.

Boru

Basically, yes. Of course, we can make an exception if the study has a particularly bad methodology and its conclusions are very implausible. But that's not the case with the Gary Kleck's study. Gary Kleck's study has a better methodology than my latest, and by far the best I made, study in social sciences does, and probably better methodology than any study in comparative linguistics or linguistic typology can possibly have. Gary Kleck's methodology cannot be the reason to reject his study and rely solely on intuition.

Wrong. Kleck’s methodology is suspect and his conclusions are at variance with the observed facts. You’ve been repeatedly give evidence and reasons why Kleck is wrong, but you continue flogging the deceased equine.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, you’re prepared to accept the results of any study as long as it’s the ONLY study. That way lies madness.

Boru

Basically, yes. Of course, we can make an exception if the study has a particularly bad methodology and its conclusions are very implausible.

That's silly. It ignores factors like study design, bias on either side of the investigation, or even simple technological issues.

In the case of Kleck's "estimate", how specifically have you excluded bias, from both respondents and from the collators of the replies? Remember, be specific.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just a single aspect of our many gun control schemes in the us - enhanced background checks- have stopped at least 100k actual gun crimes, not self reported fantasies, per year, on average, for the last 20 years. We don't know how many more crimes would have been committed if the background checks hadn't stopped those crimes, but the safe answer is "a couple few". They really put a dent in one of the most common ways for a female to get shot in the us. In her home, by her so - who's practiced at killing her before, but maybe just with his hands or a brick last time.

Whatever the actual number of legitimate defensive uses in the us is in a given year - and we can be sure it's non-zero....those people would also be spared the misfortune of being in a situation where they're contemplating shooting someone or being shot. The 100k crimes per year on average preventing do represent some chunk of whatever legitimate defensive use opportunities there are. It is a lazy and ineffective government that merely allows it's citizens to have guns, but does not act effectively to prevent them from needing guns.

You can see where this is going, logically. It;s going to take time to get a more comprehensive federal background check system up and running. 5-10 year olds are among the least likely to have anything that would show up, so we can fast track them while capacity ramps up. These 5-10 year olds will be part of our defensive use militia. Preventing terror attacks now, and gaining valuable experience for their teenage years which they will spend confiscating the weapons of anyone who can't pass the enhanced check. We could send them door to door.