Let's ban guns successfully, as the Australians have!

[Kaonohi]

Australia has had NO new massacres since the government decided to confiscate and destroy all firearms. I think we can learn from their example.

I'm sure Matapule will jump on the bandwagon... NO MASSACRES!!!!!!!!

Here is the report on the unprecedented success of the Australian Government, and the reasons we should follow in their shoes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

This shows the successes that happen when guns are OUTLAWED!

Thanks, Matapule, for steering us to the truth.

[Menehune Man]

Wish I knew what station/program aired this?

Regular people and authorities speaking on the truth of what has happened since the banning many types of guns. Also what has started and is believed to end in a total ban... of handguns, etc. Please folks listen/watch this video.

[matapule]

Wish I knew what station/program aired this?

Regular people and authorities speaking on the truth of what has happened since the banning many types of guns. Also what has started and is believed to end in a total ban... of handguns, etc. Please folks listen/watch this video.

Nice try, but SNOPES has found that the "information" presented in these Australian videos is FALSE.

[Menehune Man]

Snopes opinion... http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp.

Okay the video presented above is not ALL encompassing.
Read the whole thing including the very last paragraph to get the total point.
Nothing was proven to be false from the individual speaker's viewpoints I believe.

Statistics presented by both sides can never tell the whole story... agreed?
Individual stories count within the statistical totals.

[Kaonohi]

Snopes opinion... http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp.

Okay the video presented above is not ALL encompassing.
Read the whole thing including the very last paragraph to get the total point.
Nothing was proven to be false from the individual speaker's viewpoints I believe.

Statistics presented by both sides can never tell the whole story... agreed?
Individual stories count within the statistical totals.

I agree. Matapule sees only that which supports his imaginary reality, and ignores honest and truthful statistics. A man wih a mission. He has shown he will lie if it furthers his cause. He has, several times.

Ultimately it comes down to you.

There are those who will not give up their personal guns from what I see are constitutional AND common sense reasons.

Then there are those who would take your weapons away from you despite the FACT that you have never committed a crime.

The second phrase is unreasonable.

Most gun owners secure their firearms aginst theft or "borrowing." An uneducated few do not.

We require education for driver's licences, as we should for gun ownership. It's time to make things equal, not 'special interest.'

Don't knuckle under to the pro-gun or anti-gun crazies. USE your OWN mind.

YOU know when it's right to protect yourself. YOU know that guns need to be out of the hands of crazies; Gun nuts, anti-gun-nuts, etc. The decisions belong in the hearts and minds of people who can be totally objective.

That does NOT include anyone here. (Obviously)

[Kaonohi]

Nice try, but SNOPES has found that the "information" presented in these Australian videos is FALSE.

WRONG! You are A LIAR! Snopes found the information 'mixed,' i.e., some truth and some misinterpretation.

YOU ARE LOSING IT, Matapule. Looks like you need a long, stress-free vacation to get your head back in order.

[GregLee]

Nothing was proven to be false from the individual speaker's viewpoints I believe.

I agree. I can't find any claim in the Snopes article that there was any false information in the email from Ed Chenel.

[matapule]

I agree. I can't find any claim in the Snopes article that there was any false information in the email from Ed Chenel.

You didn't read the whole synopsis then. They said that "liars figure and the figures lie." I didn't say it, they did. The "information" in these chain emails and videos about the increase in gun violence in Australia is statisticaly insignificant and manipulated to promote false conclusions. The fact that you might have a barking dog in your neighborhood today but not yesterday, you could say that the incidence of barking dogs increased 100% today and therefore everyone should purchase earplugs to combat the problem. In fact, you should be looking at the statistics from a broader perspective in order to be statistically significant. Therefore the conclusions offered are false.

[matapule]

Nothing was proven to be false from the individual speaker's viewpoints I believe.

If I were to say that the moon is blue from my viewpoint, that does not make the moon blue.

Statistics presented by both sides can never tell the whole story... agreed?
Individual stories count within the statistical totals.

I do not agree. Statistics DO tell the whole story. However you cannot present anecdotal (individual) stories as being statistically significant. You cannot present data from a small sampling in a specific and insulated data base and then extrapolate to the population at large. I did pay attention to Professor Wu (visiting professor from China) as he lectured about the breaking strength of "pricks" during my statistics classes.

The NRA is to statistics as Faux Gnus is to news. Their conclusions based on their "statstics" are completely false. There is no useful purpose to watch their propaganda (videos) unless you want to be like the typical Faux Gnus viewer...........uninformed.

[Menehune Man]

If I were to say that the moon is blue from my viewpoint, that does not make the moon blue.



I do not agree. Statistics DO tell the whole story. However you cannot present anecdotal (individual) stories as being statistically significant. You cannot present data from a small sampling in a specific and insulated data base and then extrapolate to the population at large. I did pay attention to Professor Wu (visiting professor from China) as he lectured about the breaking strength of "pricks" during my statistics classes.

The NRA is to statistics as Faux Gnus is to news. Their conclusions based on their "statstics" are completely false. There is no useful purpose to watch their propaganda (videos) unless you want to be like the typical Faux Gnus viewer...........uninformed.

You are soooo full of $#*+. Guess there's no way to have a real conversation with you. Don't worry you wont see any more responses from me concerning anything you write.
I'm done wasting time with you...

[GregLee]

The fact that you might have a barking dog in your neighborhood today but not yesterday, you could say that the incidence of barking dogs increased 100% today and therefore everyone should purchase earplugs to combat the problem.

In your analogy, the report that "the incidence of barking dogs increased 100%" is true, not false. The conclusion "everyone should purchase earplugs" is not the sort of statement that can be false, since it's a recommendation. Maybe it doesn't follow, maybe it is unwise. You may quarrel with such conclusions, but it is misleading to call them "false". (But it is also wrong to say you are lying when you do -- you're simply mistaken.)

[matapule]

In your analogy, the report that "the incidence of barking dogs increased 100%" is true, not false.

You cannot extrapolate that one incident to then say that Hawai'i and the US experienced a 100% increase in barking dogs in one day. That's what the chain emails and videos try to do when speaking of gun violence in Australia. The conclusion is false.

it is misleading to call them "false".

The conclusion IS false if you try to extrapolate a small and isolated sample into a larger data base.

[matapule]

You are soooo full of $#*+. Guess there's no way to have a real conversation with you. Don't worry you wont see any more responses from me concerning anything you write.
I'm done wasting time with you...

So much for the spirit of aloha. If you can't present a logical counter-argument then attempt to insult them with bombastic rhetoric. This is the SECOND time you said you are leaving........time will tell.

[Walkoff Balk]

As Crocodile Dundee would say, "That's not a knife, Now this is a knife."

[salmoned]

Statistics DO tell the whole story.

Absolutely wrong! Data tell the whole story (but only if the data is complete); statistics are massaged data to present a part of the story you want told.

Data are facts, statistics are tales with a factual basis.

Conclusions based on statistics are twice removed from facts in the hierarchy of Reality.

[matapule]

Absolutely wrong! Data tell the whole story (but only if the data is complete); statistics are massaged data to present a part of the story you want told.

Data are facts, statistics are tales with a factual basis.

Conclusions based on statistics are twice removed from facts in the hierarchy of Reality.

sooooooooo........where is your data? Statistics ARE based on representative data. Take a statistics class sometime and then come back and discuss with some knowledge.

[matapule]

To get back on topic..........here is a letter from Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard with the results of strict gun control in Australia since enactment in 1996.

[GregLee]

Data are facts, statistics are tales with a factual basis.

No. Statistics are factual observations or the values of mathematical functions of them, such as sum, mean value, variance, and mathematics is not a mere tale.

[salmoned]

Greg, I'm sorry but mathematics is not factual, it's only and entirely conceptual.

[GregLee]

Greg, I'm sorry but mathematics is not factual, it's only and entirely conceptual.

I'm sure I didn't say that mathematics is factual.

A mathematical derivation preserves factuality; it doesn't produce a mere interpretation of the facts. It's a fact that I'm 5'8" and it's a fact that my wife is 5'6". It's mathematically true that the mean of those two heights is 5'7", so it's a fact that my wife and my mean height is 5'7". That's not just a tale -- that's just as much a fact as the individual heights are. See? Start with facts, apply a mathematical function, and you still have a fact.

There is plenty of theory in statistics, and plenty of opportunity to mislead, if that's what you're getting at. But statistics are facts, contrary to what you wrote.

[matapule]

It's a fact that I'm 5'8" and it's a fact that my wife is 5'6". It's mathematically true that the mean of those two heights is 5'7", so it's a fact that my wife and my mean height is 5'7".

I agree. Now if you lived in Australia, the gun nuts on this forum would be saying that since the mean height of you and your wife is 5'-7", then it is a fact that ALL people in Australia are 5'-7" tall. That would be factually incorrect because the sample would not be large enough to jump to that conclusion.

The facts are that gun violence in Australia has been dramatically reduced since 1996 when STRICT gun controls were enacted there.

[GregLee]

... a fact that ALL people in Australia are 5'-7" tall. That would be factually incorrect because the sample would not be large enough to jump to that conclusion.

Not wishing to seem picky, but it wouldn't be factually incorrect. The average height of all people in Australia is a matter of fact, but your conclusion about the sample size required to reach a plausible estimate of the average height is a matter of theory, not fact.

[matapule]

Not wishing to seem picky, but it wouldn't be factually incorrect.

The presumption would be factually incorrect. You are being picky and knitting those picks.

The average height of all people in Australia is a matter of fact, but your conclusion about the sample size required to reach a plausible estimate of the average height is a matter of theory, not fact.

Well then let's survey everyone! You are denying accepted scientific principle and it is not a theory. Scientific analysis can even proscribe a margin of error to these computations and calculations. But now you are wanting to argue semantics.

The NRA has blocked all attempts to study and analyze gun violence in the US. All they offer is unsubstantiated talking points.

To get back on topic, gun violence in Australia has been dramatically reduced since the introduction of strict gun control in 1996. That is a verifiable fact!

[GregLee]

You are denying accepted scientific principle and it is not a theory. Scientific analysis can even proscribe a margin of error to these computations and calculations.

No, I'm not denying any accepted scientific principle, and it is a theory. You can't proceed to estimate a required sample size or a margin of error without making assumptions about the probability distribution of the population. This takes you away from just reporting facts and into interpreting facts (what salmoned was complaining about). I have nothing against theorizing, myself -- that's how science proceeds. But I think it is better not to confuse facts and interpretations.

[matapule]

Bottom line....there is no denying that where guns have been banned or strictly controlled the incidence of gun violence has been dramatically reduced. That is not a theory, those are the facts.