TonySnark on gun deaths

11:43:32 AM+TumblingReverieTonySnark: Do you agree America has much higher rate of gun deaths than other nations?
11:43:33 AM+TonySnarkRazorBack: you need to study the American political system. Your ignorance is wholly apparent.
11:43:58 AMⓘ Debates set mode +l 77
11:44:55 AM+TonySnarkTumblingReverie: comparing between nations can be problematic, but before we even get to that, your question is loaded. It should not be "gun deaths" which are compared, but total violent crime.
11:45:04 AM+TonySnarko`puckkk, make me.
11:45:43 AM← Dreamstwice has quit (Ping timeout)
11:46:49 AM+ManInBoxer888new poll shows Jones is leading Moore lol
11:46:55 AM+TumblingReverieWell, we can always compare two things, e.g. gun deaths in one nation v. gun deaths in another nation. You seem to be stating it would be more useful to generalize to violent crime.
11:47:00 AM+TonySnarkBy how much?
11:47:21 AM+TumblingReverieWe can certainly expand my original question, but I'd like to know where we agree and disagree.
11:47:31 AM+TumblingReverieTonySnark: Do you agree America has much higher rate of gun deaths than other nations?
11:47:43 AM+TonySnarkI think trying to compare "gun deaths" is disengenuous, Lania
11:47:59 AM+TumblingReverieI'm ready to talk about that with you.
11:48:06 AM+TumblingReveriePlease answer my question first, though.
11:48:18 AM+TumblingReverieThen, tell me why it's disingenuous.
11:48:50 AM+TonySnarkBecause a violent death by one tool is just as bad as a violent death by another tool.
11:48:50 AM+TumblingReverieLike, if I were to ask, Do right-wing groups commit more terrorism in the USA than Islamists?
11:49:01 AM+TumblingReverieThe answer is 'Yes, but there are a lot more right-wing groups than Islamists'
11:49:08 AM+TumblingReverieTonySnark: We can talk about that.
11:49:42 AM+TonySnarkShooting someone in the head and bashing their skull in with a crowbar are both violent deaths.
11:49:43 AM+TumblingReverieTonySnark: If I take the number of gun deaths in America, divide by the American population, and compare that to the ratio of other nations, what do I see?
11:49:50 AM+TumblingReverieTonySnark: We can talk about that.
11:50:15 AM+TumblingReverieTonySnark: You are unwilling to comment on this number.
11:50:19 AM+TumblingReverieI find that bothersome.
11:50:23 AM+TonySnarkTumblingReverie: I *am* talking about it. I'm explaining why it's disengenuous to focus only on "gun deaths".
11:50:40 AM+TumblingReverieYou've not yet dedicated a single post to actually responding to the number.
11:50:46 AM+ManInBoxer888TonySnark  http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/11/doug_jones_takes_lead_on_roy_m.html
11:50:57 AM+TumblingReverieBut, you've dedicated 12 posts to why it doesn't mean what we it may look like.
11:51:04 AM+TumblingReveriePlease begin by noting the numbers.
11:51:11 AM+TumblingReverieThen, we can look at context.
11:51:17 AM+TonySnarkTumblingReverie: surely you understand the concept of a loaded or unfair question. Should such questions be considered part of genuine discourse, or should such questions be shown to be what they are?
11:51:20 AM+ManInBoxer888https://www.salon.com/2017/11/12/new-alabama-poll-shows-democrat-doug-jones-in-lead-over-roy-moore/
11:51:48 AM+TonySnarkManInBoxer888: thanks
11:51:55 AM+TumblingReverieTonySnark: If I was new to the topic of gun deaths, how might I begin?
11:52:05 AM+TumblingReverieI think the most immediate thing to look at would be gun deaths per capita.
11:52:17 AM+TumblingReverieIf I found that America had 100x other nations, that'd be notable.
11:52:25 AM+TumblingReverieIf I found that American had 1/100x other nations, that'd be notable.
11:52:32 AM+TumblingReverieThe analysis can continue from there.
11:52:45 AM+TonySnarkTumblingReverie: we're not going to be able to proceed on this topic I guess.
11:52:49 AM Ignoring TonySnark!*@*
11:52:50 AM+ManInBoxer888http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/doug-jones-leads-roy-moore-by-4-points-in-alabama-poll/article/264...     Doug Jones leads Roy Moore by 4 points in Alabama: Poll  lol not a liberal news source by 4 points
11:52:52 AM+TumblingReverieAgreed.
11:52:59 AM+TumblingReverieI found your responses very disingenuous.
11:53:37 AM+TumblingReverieI don't know of any way to legitimatize your responses.
11:53:39 AM← Hedrin has quit (Client closed connection)
11:53:53 AM+TumblingReverieYour responses would be unacceptable in every domain of science I've ever studied.
11:54:04 AM+TumblingReverieOr, in how I've seen every scientist discuss every domain of science I've ever seen.
11:54:13 AM+TumblingReverieYou always begin with the most immediately available facts.
11:54:25 AM+TumblingReverieOnly then do you start to discuss the context of those numbers.
11:54:33 AMⓘ barabbas` is now known as barabbas`afk
11:54:57 AM+TumblingReverieHere's an example:
11:55:10 AM+TumblingReverie1 - I am interested in whether or not there is a relationship between Catholicism and pedophilia
11:55:20 AM+TumblingReverie2 - Let's look at rates of pedophilia in Catholic groups and in non-Catholic groups
11:55:33 AM+TumblingReverie3 - Say I observe that pedophilia is 3x higher in Catholic groups
11:55:44 AM+TumblingReverie4 - This doesn't prove there is a link between pedophilia and Catholicism, yet
11:56:09 AM+TumblingReverie5 - It's fine to discuss context -- maybe there are 3x more Catholics. Maybe in the same size group there are 3x more interactions between adults and children
11:56:37 AM+TumblingReverie6 - But for you to NEVER acknowledge the data does show that 3x difference is dishonest. There's no way to justify what you did.