Jump to content

Politics - Jason X


Amentep

Recommended Posts

How about universal healthcare? If now is not the time to discuss guns can we discuss healthcare?

 

Look at all the GoFundMes set up for medical bills

That'd require caring about others too much for the average American. Interesting article on gun control, though. The real answer though, is bullet control.

Edited by Malcador
  • Like 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

speak o' the busted math then make the following observation:  "The averaged EU rate comes out about half that of the US, even when including the ISIS stuff, and is far lower when not." dear lord.  didn't the board just go through the mistake o' averages?  would be as ridiculous as using the averages o' each US state to come up with an overall death rate for the US. thank goodness for all those states such as maine and new hampshire, eh?

 

but yeah oecd figures and us state department numbers is not gonna have identical confidence intervals.  got a better source?  makes more sense to take oecd numbers at face value than to try and average individual european rates that is for darn certain. btw, brevik/norway weren't actual included in the specific eu comparison, which should have been obvious from the quote we included.   

 

and yes, there were multiple sources provided for the data such as, but not limited to the following:

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/248845/number-of-victims-of-mass-shootings-in-western-democratic-countries/

http://archive.is/f4gbv (considerable data utilized comes from this site, but only the archived data from 2009-2013 remains, so 2014-2015 cannot be adequate reviewed.  however, the original data is oecd)

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?expanded=no&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=&dtp2=all&success=yes&region=8&ob=GTDID&od=desc&page=1&count=20#results-table

 

also appears to be reliance on data from jaclyn schildkraut of the state university of new york in oswego and h. jaymi elsass of texas state university... mostly from a politifact article.

 

a book by john richard lott, an economist with his phd from ucla, is also referenced, but no specific footnotes or useful links is available to cross-reference. it is worth highlighting how the cprc site appears to be a pet project of professor lott, so is kinda skeevy to reference the book as a source w/o making more obvious how he is a contributor to the article... though he clear ain't hiding the fact neither as he responds to comments personal. 

 

the linked table, which seems to have confused zor, were specific added to show where switzerland ranks compared to other nations insofar as mass shootings is concerned.  in spite of low crime, switzerland actual suffers from a relative high death rate due to mass shootings. "Even just using the chart's data we can see the 55% claim is rubbish," were low energy.  were never claimed the chart were representative o' the eu.

 

the isis exclusion comment were pretty much rhetoric.  the kinda soverignty conflicts referenced were as follows: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-12/macedonia-charges-30-with-terrorism-after-kumanovo-shooting/6461990. isis terrorism 'round the globe is hardly the kinda insular sovereignty bloodshed being referenced. rhetoric.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Averaged EU rate = total number of deaths/ 100k population over the whole EU- that's method 2 in my example. Call it aggregate or EU wide rate if you prefer, makes no difference. It's still the only measurement that is relevant when you're talking about the EU as a whole.

 

Let's go by the OECD numbers. As that's the only link that provides relevant data, and was indeed the source of the misleading chart with all the zero countries tripped from Last Time. Handily that means I can reuse the maths.

  • US rate is 0.72; 227 deaths from ~320 million people
  • European rate is ~0.33; total Euro population for provided countries is ~480 million, total deaths, 162. In order to get up to the claimed 55% more than the US you'd need (1) literally no more deaths in the US, and (2) an extra ~320 deaths in Europe, over the missing data period. That seems... unlikely. Indeed, it certainly didn't happen.
  • EU rate? Without Uttoya the total deaths is 85, minus Switzerland and Iceland it's 79. And that removes about 14 million people only. I'll be generous and call the new rate 0.2 and, very generously, 1/3 of the US rate. So you'd need the small matter of 400 (!) extra deaths in the EU in 2 years to reach 1.55x the US rate.

TLDR, your site is garbage and cannot into maths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

look at the date.

 

...

 

will give you a moment to consider the ramifications o' such a simple oversight.

 

the data at the site is using death rate through 2015, so by using only the single link, you convenient drop a fair number of european deaths, including 130 from the november 13, 2015 paris attacks. 

 

pretty obvious 'oversight,' eh? you naughty boy.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps obvious we missed both american and euro additions, but france had a particular rough year in 2015. can add another 12 deaths in january 2015 for france. also another 4 deaths in august.  weren't the only euro addition over two years.

 

wth, might as well add a few more... just to drive the point home.

 

5/24 2014 belgium-- 4 fatalities

1/9 2015 france-- 4 fatalities

2/24 2015 czech republic-- 9 fatalities

5/10 2015 switzerland-- 4 fatalities

5/15 2015 italy-- 4 fatalities

 

might be others, but a quick google search found those.

 

during same additional two years, US adds 49? 

 

not hard to see how balance changed.  

 

and again, as has been stated before, the 55% is actual a europe comparison as 'posed to only eu.  is why we posted the relevant eu quote, which still shops eu ahead of US but not 55%. "The average fatality rate for the 28 EU countries is 0.114 with a 95% confidence Interval of -.0244 to .253. The US rate is 0.089 is lower than the EU rate, but they are again not statistically significantly different."  oh, and switzerland were still beating the US too, which were the original point which got lost somewheres.

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There were 55% more casualties per capita from mass public shootings in EU than US from 2009-15"
 
EU. Not Europe.
 
Yeah, the chart itself is labeled "Public Mass Shootings in Europe and the EU" (and then goes on to include Norway in the EU... Russia is also bolded because why the **** not), but then it's at best a case of data not supporting the original assertion.
 
But even the website shows that it's casualties per million that are "higher" in the EU than the US, whereas fatalities are still higher in the US. You seem to be talking about one when referring to the other.
 
So, back of the envelope calculations still puts the US per capita deaths in mass shootings at 75% more than in the EU. "Europe" in general? Who knows. Perhaps if we consider only countries where mass shootings happened and exclude the rest, and maybe if we count deaths in Russia but not her ~140 million inhabitants, etc.
 
It's also worth noting that mass public shootings are defined (per the website) "as as four or more people killed in a public place, and not in the course of committing another crime, and not involving struggles over sovereignty", which is useful because it excludes other incidents that may further tip the scales such as gang-related violence, "private" shootings etc. Not sure where you're getting the 49 additional deaths 2013-2015, but consider that the criterion was lowered to 3 from 4 in a single event to qualify, in 2013. I think it's actually close to double that number.

Not that it was a very useful comparison to begin with, with arbitrary cutoff points and distinctions between Europe, the EU, and casualty/fatality, but yeah, there's just no salvaging that hodgepodge of "statistics".

Edited by 213374U

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the data at the site is using death rate through 2015, so by using only the single link, you convenient drop a fair number of european deaths, including 130 from the november 13, 2015 paris attacks.

 

lol, I didn't cut anything off- I used your citation which was supposed to support your data. The 130 extra deaths, all of them, still don't get the death rate even above the US rate. Note also that on your cited website the US had two extra years and... minus 30 deaths with those 2 extra years compared to the OECD data.

 

as has been stated before, the 55% is actual a europe comparison as 'posed to only eu.

 

 

Either is wrong. But, in any case, direct from your cited website: "There were 55% more casualties per capita from mass public shootings in EU than US from 2009-15".

 

Really though, the person who made the chart doesn't even have a clue of such basic facts as who is in the EU. As I said, they've included Norway and Switzerland in the EU figure, the obvious hint being that the difference between their aggregate for Europe (343) and for the EU (297, sic*) is less than the 67 killed at Uttoya alone. The figure for the EU is actually 228. And as above, the US somehow has managed -30 deaths despite having two years longer, compared to the OECD data which is from a reputable source and follows proper methodology.

 

*yeah, they've still got it wrong even when including Switzerland and Norway in the EU as they've also included one attack in Russia somehow. They're utter, irredeemable garbage. Incompetence or malfeasance, who knows, but it manages to have negative worth either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.. any official word on this piece of crap's 'motive'?

Well Pat Robertson has theories.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/03/yes-pat-robertson-blamed-the-vegas-shooting-on-disrespect-for-trump-and-the-national-anthem/?utm_term=.32d63e874cd8

 

:lol:

Edited by Malcador

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is as intellectually vacant as blaming the guns. Maybe even more. 

"What can't be changed must be endured"

Robert Jordan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well considering the source, be glad he didn't determine the cause to be gays or the lack of God in government.

  • Like 2

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well considering the source, be glad he didn't determine the cause to be gays or the lack of God in government.

 

Maybe the cut his microphone in mid-sentence. That's usually where he goes. 

"What can't be changed must be endured"

Robert Jordan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 more curiously self-serving stuff from zor

you used ONE cited source from a list, and the source you used were specific for rampage shootings as 'posed to mass shootings? you do realize the definitions ain't the same, yes?  takes some work to figure out which rampage shootings qualify as mass shootings and it don't appear you did so.  can't imagine why the numbers don't align exact. yes, very honest.  you also left off two whole years which included the unfortunate incidents in france.  at the very least such an oversight is a major blunder.  at worst it is intentional dishonest. wanna find the guy with busted math, then look in a mirror.  

 

as to #'s concerns, am agreeing the moscow shooting being added is perplexing.  clear mistake/error.

 

as to the definition o' mass shooting, to choose a definition which is constant throughout the entire period of the study makes sense, no? there is no single and uniform definition for mass shootings, but am not having much complaint with using a constant.  the fbi definition for mass murder, and their stats for such, were based on a 4 fatality basement, and was the same for many decades. most stats kept for mass shootings were based 'pon a 4 fatality minimum.  majority of the study is including time when 4 fatality were the norm, so... 

 

the exclusion o' "struggles over sovereignty" would seem to benefit eu calculations far more than the US, unless you went off the rails as did zor and attempted to include global isis attacks as being struggles over sovereignty for the purpose o' the definition.

 

in spite o' what you may have seen on tv, am not able to recall much in the way of gang-related mass shooting incidents in the last few years here in the US, but am honest ignorant 'bout such numbers. if the study were covering the 1970s and 80s, then gang-related mass shootings would probable be a significant topic of debate.  then again, with all the european terrorist incidents during the 70s and 80s, am not certain what would happen to a comparative analysis of mass shootings and/or mass killings. us gang-related crime and murder is an enormous problem, and gun-related homicides by gang members killing gang members likely accounts for a disturbing % of all us firearm homicides, but the mass shooting is a unique kinda gun issue which occupies the imaginations and nightmares of the masses.

 

and again, we clarified many times now how inspite o' the highlighted headline, the actual comparison were europe as a whole, while the specific eu v. us were clarified thus: "The average fatality rate for the 28 EU countries is 0.114 with a 95% confidence Interval of -.0244 to .253. The US rate is 0.089 is lower than the EU rate, but they are again not statistically significantly different."  sure, the average rate is inherent flawed as we noted many times, but zor were quite happy to use such earlier. 

 

if you are somehow seeing 75% higher death rate based on the cprc site numbers, am admitted baffled as at best we see near identical death rates for eu and us over the same period... though again, if mass killings, including bombings and truck massacres, were included in the study, the numbers would undoubted shift a bit.  increased gun controls don't necessarily reduce mass killing as the past few years in europe no doubt illustrate. 'course if you are doing as zor and using the single linked rampage shooter site as your only source, then am understanding the confusion.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used one source, provided by you as being the basis for the data in the chart and supporting it. Your other cites provided no useful information- unsurprisingly. It's OECD data you're arguing against, you're supporting Random Website. Normally that might be an appeal to authority, but Random Website is a worthless confused mess of conflicting and inconsistent data with no set method and which hasn't got any clue of such utterly basic things as which countries are in the EU and not- and cannot even manage to consistently apply their incorrect list. While the OECD is the fricking Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, one of the premier sources for data with rigorous established methods and a source list. To summarise:

  • Your website has no clue who is in the EU and who isn't. Couldn't spare the 10s Google search? Didn't want to? Garbage either way.
  • has shonky methodology apart from that
  • no sovereignty attacks, yet includes ISIS
  • includes deaths and injuries wholesale from attacks involving suicide bombings, thus
  • they don't even apply their definition of 'mass shootings' properly
  • doesn't know how to use confidence intervals
  • conflicts with the reputable OECD data such that Europe's death go up, but US deaths somehow go down; oh so very conveniently
  • provides no checkable, verifiable sources

and that's off the top of my head. It's politically motivated guff for gullible morons who are incapable of checking facts for themselves and think just because Random Website says it it must be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read that nearly half of GoFundMe's 2 billion dollars raised (as of last year) has been for medical bills

They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps instead of choosing to get sick.
  • Like 1

"To be fair, if I was married to Milla Jovovich, I would also be happy just making movies that show off her butt." - Hurlsnot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

"Get some poor minorities, that keeps WASPs away easy." - Malcador

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One positive thing I've seen is the NRA has come out in favor of restricting bump stocks. I've been very critical of their handling of these events in the past, but it is encouraging to see them enter the discussion in such a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we ever perfect contraceptives, then I'd actually imagine anti-abortion could become the de-facto liberal position. Being anti-contraceptive though is malicious, especially if your intent is to prevent abortions and promote the working family unit. At some point you have to wonder about ulterior motives, like breaking about families, making single-mothers codependent on the state all while making moral quantifications against those who use social services. It just seems so stupid though indulge in such a resentment loop, yet here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those of you in such countries, how does the average streetbum go about using their UHC? Does one simply walk into any hospital and theyre good to go?

 

I'm in one such country, and I'm kind of a bum, so I'll bite.

 

One does not simply walk into a hospital unless in need need of emergency medical care. For everything else, you call up your assigned GP to get an appointment, generally in 1-2 days. The GP decides if the case warrants a specialist's opinion and if so, you're given a referral note which authorizes you to get an appointment with a specialist (which you don't get to choose either). This is where the waiting times get pretty crazy as the appointment can be anything from weeks to months unless it's something potentially life-threatening such as cancer signs. If you have, say, just a bad knee which requires a specialist, a specific diagnostic test and maybe finally surgery, you can be looking at the better part of a year.

 

Recently they've been cutting down on wait times by redirecting patients to private hospitals -with the public health system footing the bill- but some people just refuse and would rather just wait. UHC has been hit fairly hard by the recession with Brussels-mandated "austerity" policies causing problems with understaffing, underfunding, the works. Quality varies quite a bit between regions too because we're so progressive that public healthcare administration is not the jurisdiction of the central government beyond ensuring that such a thing exists in every region. The Catalan health service for instance is basically bankrupt.

 

I am fortunate enough to be able to afford private insurance because even though the quality is the same (medical professionals often work in both systems in a morning/afternoon split), I don't need to go through the GP and can get a specialist appointment of my choosing directly, and wait lists for tests and surgery are much shorter.

  • Like 2

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed we're on page 46 already. How is it that this monster of a thread has not crashed the forum yet?

 

What sorcery is this?!

Edited by 213374U

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What sorcery is this?!

Hegelian Dialectics.

"To be fair, if I was married to Milla Jovovich, I would also be happy just making movies that show off her butt." - Hurlsnot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

"Get some poor minorities, that keeps WASPs away easy." - Malcador

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...