Typical kevin, when faced with facts; ignore the facts
Typical kevin, when faced with facts; ignore the facts
Kevin Lewis writes: So I'll concede that Chicago is a cesspool of violence and that it is "run by Democrats." Can you show that it would be any less violent if it were run by Republicans?
Of course poor old DonDiego cannot. Unfortunately, there is no data available for analysis based upon future events; analysis requires data. (Oh wait ! Kevin Lewis already stated poor old DonDiego could not answer his question.)
Our buddy Tom is far too intellectually stunted to understand the point I made about correlation and causation. Hopefully, DonDiego is not. Tom should go back outside to his sandbox and let the adults talk.
DonDiego's purpose in bringing up that list was to somehow prove that when Democrats run cities, there are high rates of gun violence. If that wasn't his purpose, he shouldn't have mentioned the political affiliations of those administrations.
What is actually the case is that crowded urban areas have higher rates of gun violence than other areas, and that most crowded urban areas tend to be Democratic in their politics. The two effects are not connected. No data set exists that shows such a connection--again, only a correlation.
It is a sign of DonDiego's limited academic skills that he states that analysis of future events cannot be performed. Past events can indeed be used to predict future outcomes. For instance, if we wanted to test the hypothesis that ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), cities "run by" Republicans will have lower rates of gun violence than those run by Democrats, we could simply examine historical data. It's like predicting hurricanes--we know from previous experience what conditions produce them. In point of fact, scientists (and pundits) "predict the future" all the time.
But I'm getting tired of this debate, which is tangential to the subject I originally brought up. After all, any belief that there is a causal relationship between a city's governmental politics and its rate of gun violence is only that--a belief. DonDiego wants data--so, fine; I've cited data on gun deaths in the home. Let's discuss that and if you want, we can mentally nuke Chicago, with all its spics, wops, darkies, MOOOZLEEMS, and no-good LIBURRULS. Then maybe we can get back to the original subject.
Kevin’s other fallback when faced with facts is to call people stupid.
From Kevin Lewis' post of 1:30pm on 4 October:
"DonDiego's purpose in bringing up that list was to somehow prove that when Democrats run cities, there are high rates of gun violence."
No. DonDiego's intent was to respond to Kevin Lewis's post of 8:47am on 3 October, in which Kevin Lewis inquired:
"Does DonDiego have a list of major cities in the US, the political affiliations of their governments, and the rates of gun deaths there compared to a national average?"
n.b. Kevin Lewis asked poor old DonDiego to provide a list of major cities with their political affiliation and rates of gun death compared to a national average.
In DonDiego's response of 1:06pm on 3 October DonDiego responded to Kevin Lewis' query just so:"No, but he can do the research"
Thereupon poor old DonDiego presented the data addressing:
__ the top-10 US cities' firearm homicides data with a list of the political party affiliation in charge of those top-10 cities.
This data was the best response poor old DonDiego could come up addressing:
i. major US cities
ii. political affiliation of those major cities
iii. rates of gun deaths
iv. and the national average
n.b. these data are exactly what Kevin Lewis requested, but poor old DonDiego's source was limited to only the top-10 homicide-rate cities
n.b. Poor old DonDiego's purpose was to respond to Kevin Lewis' request, not to "prove" any conclusion; DonDiego has no objection to Kevin Lewis' conclusion that "when Democrats run cities, there are high rates of gun violence", but DonDiego would prefer to see more data-points. Perhaps Kevin Lewis would be pleasantly surprised, . . . or not !
n.b. In his post of 1:30pm on 4 October Kevin Lewis differs from poor old DonDiego's opinion that "future events cannot be analyzed". He thereupon offers an example of "predicting the future" based upon observation of past events.
DonDiego opines that analysis of future events is not equivalent to predicting future events based on prior observation of past events judged similar.
Definition:
analyze : examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of (something, especially information), typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation.
predict : say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.
One can, indeed analyze a past or present hurricane and predict behavior of a future hurricane based upon that analysis. However the prediction is not equivalent to analysis of that future hurricane. One cannot "analyze" a hurricane that does not yet exist.
In fact, poor old DonDiego is confident of this based upon his admittedly limited academic skills.
What happened with guns in New York under Guiliani?
I can only accept the list DonDiego provided on the dubious premise that there are only ten cities in the US. If that's not true, then the list is incomplete and no conclusions can be drawn from it.
However, let's accept the premise that Democratic cities are maelstroms of violence and murder and the Democrats want to implement a tyrannical socialist state and Hillary sent emails and THEY WANTS TO TAKES AWAY OUR GUNZ. FINE. I was never talking about gun homicides only. I was talking about gun deaths. And not all gun deaths--only those that occur in the home when the owner of the house owns a gun and keeps it there.
That has little or nothing to do with urban crime statistics. And, I have to repeat myself here, it has nothing to do with politics.
KevinLewis writes: " . . . let's accept the premise that Democratic cities are maelstroms of violence and murder and the Democrats want to implement a tyrannical socialist state and Hillary sent emails and THEY WANTS TO TAKES AWAY OUR GUNZ. FINE.
Just as poor old DonDiego suspected, . . .
Perhaps, the better discussion would be how conservates' fetishization of guns is rooted in their unfulfilled homo-erotic desires. I have never met a gun nut that hasn't licked a barrel at least once.
Once again, Mark says------ "Perhaps, the better discussion would be how conservates' fetishization of guns is rooted in their unfulfilled homo-erotic desires. I have never met a gun nut that hasn't licked a barrel at least once.---- Typical liberal response ( page 4 of their handbook) "when faced with undeniable facts, lie about and attack the opposition's character".
