Is Shodan more retarded lately, or has he maintained a consistent level of retardation all along?

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Do you disagree with anything I’ve written here? If so, how?

Well, I have answers to some of your questions, and to the extent that those answers cut against the conclusions you’ve drawn, I think I disagree – more accurate, I guess, would be to ask you if hearing the following information causes you to revise anything you wrote.

You say:

1. It was not systematically collected.

How can you say this? In fiscal 2009-2010, 153 reported crimes with guns occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants – 'crimes" being all murders, non-negligent manslaughters, aggravated assaults, forcible sex crimes and robberies in more than two dozen categories, including “bars/nightclubs” and “restaurants.”

In fiscal 2010-2011, there were a total of 145 reported crimes with guns under the precise same categories.

These results were drawn directly from the Virginia State Police reports, and spot-checked by direct contact more than a dozen police departments in Virginia for more detailed information on all reported crimes involving firearms at those businesses.

It pertains to “gun crimes” which is not the same as gun violence.

I suppose that’s true, but the categories were the same for both years. What sorts of “gun violence” are you picturing that doesn’t get reported as a gun crime?

You (or those making similar hay out of these numbers) can only presume or surmise regarding the key mechanism. That is, I’m interested in whether the presence of a greater number of firearms is associated with a greater number of incidents of firearm violence. Can you tell me the change between the two years in the number of firearms present?

Present in the bars? Not with any specificity. But it’s hard to imagine how the change in the law would have made the number go down, isn’t it? And why must I be allocated that burden? I favored the change in the law, claiming that gun crime would not increase. The law’s opponents were the ones claiming a change would occur.

Or did you mean guns present in the state of Virginia? Gun sales in Virgina rose 16 percent from 2010 to 2011.

4. There’s insufficient context for the two numbers you have.
a. Temporally, how do these numbers compare to the prior years? (You’ve made a claim that the numbers have remained low; what are they, and how were they reported before the following reporting year has even concluded?)

Answered above. Did you read the linked newspaper article that explained this in some detail?

*Proximally, how do the numbers compare to other states? For instance, violent crimes have broadly trended downward in the US as a whole over this period. What if the policy in Virginia had the impact of increasing gun crimes in bars, while at the same time, broader factors were working to reduce gun crimes in Virginia bars. What was the rate of gun crimes in bars in Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, etc during this same time period? What if the 8 case drop (5% of the total) you have pointed out compared to a 10% or 20% drop in other bars in other regions? Would you still feel it was compelling evidence that the Virginia law was not associated with a higher rate of gun crimes?
*

That’s not a bad question, but it allocates the burden of proof to me. Why? I was the one predicting no change; my opponents predicted an increase. I can show there was no increase – if they wish to claim that there was an increase masked by broader reasons, shouldn’t the burden be on them to substantiate those reasons?

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Shodan:

Hehe. Very cute.

Did you, or did you not, post thefollowing:

With the caveat that sometimes I am fully aware that posting something will cause the Usual Suspects to go berserk, and still post it for the sheer entertainment value of watching the meltdowns.

Does that not qualify as “posting of inflammatory comments solely to get a rise out of people”? It sure seems awfully close.

Again, I didn’t expect you to deny this. I thought it was something you were proud of.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Lobohan

God, you’re fucking stupid.

And yet I’m still smarter than you.

@Bosstone

What do you mean “you people”?

I asked first.

[Lobohan]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

And yet I’m still smarter than you.

Are you? I’ll let the peanut gallery decide on that.

I asked first.

You conservatives, always playing the race card.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

I specifically said I’d be happy with someone who said, “I still say in the long run that crime will rise, but I admit that I was wrong about what would happen this past year.”

We have enough data to answer that question confidently, don’t we?

How many people in that thread did, though?

Could we define your sample universe, please?

I’d say they have to meet three criteria:

1. They were in the thread both (a) before and (b) after Post 100; and

2. They argued beforehand that crime would rise in bars and restaurants.

So, which posters are in that universe? Which ones acknowledged the validity of the data, and which ones didn’t?

If you’re saying that thread has lessons for us, put together the data that drive the lesson.

Or kindly shut up. Because a cursory look at the thread in question says you’re full of it, and given that you’re the one making a claim about the lessons of that thread, you’re the one on whom the burden rests to prove it’s got something to say.

[Shodan]

@Mr.Svinlesha

Shodan:

Hehe. Very cute.

Did you, or did you not, post thefollowing:

Does that not qualify as “posting of inflammatory comments solely to get a rise out of people”? It sure seems awfully close.

No, it doesn’t. Posting something even though I know it will cause idiots to react badly is not the same thing as posting something solely because it will cause trouble.

Read the thread - heck, read the post. **mhendo **says -

He’s never struck as someone who is here merely to get a reaction out of people, even though that is sometimes the result of his contributions.

To which I respond, Correct.

I am saying exactly the opposite - I am not here merely to get a reaction out of people. I am perfectly well aware that posting some opinions drive the Usual Suspects batshit insane. I am not prevented from posting them by that consideration. Laughing at someone, even a liberal, making a fool of himself is not trolling.

Would you expect someone to refrain from criticizing some sacred cow of the Right, because he knew it would offend me? Why should they give a shit? And therefore, why should I?

Regards,
Shodan

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

Well, I have answers to some of your questions, and to the extent that those answers cut against the conclusions you’ve drawn, I think I disagree – more accurate, I guess, would be to ask you if hearing the following information causes you to revise anything you wrote.

You say:

1. It was not systematically collected.

How can you say this? In fiscal 2009-2010, 153 reported crimes with guns occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants – 'crimes" being all murders, non-negligent manslaughters, aggravated assaults, forcible sex crimes and robberies in more than two dozen categories, including “bars/nightclubs” and “restaurants.”

In fiscal 2010-2011, there were a total of 145 reported crimes with guns under the precise same categories.

These results were drawn directly from the Virginia State Police reports, and spot-checked by direct contact more than a dozen police departments in Virginia for more detailed information on all reported crimes involving firearms at those businesses.

If I might Bricker you, and answer in a pompously didactic fashion ;), what would be wrong with me collecting data on the prevalence rate of depression by counting the number of people who come in to a clinic for treatment of depression?

I’ll answer rather than playing a back and forth game – I haven’t systematically measured the rate of depression, I’ve measured the rate of people coming in for treatment of depression. We call police, FBI and court data “official records,” and it certainly has value. But when one wants to analyze the association between, say domestic violence and alcohol use, just going by official records is not systematic enough, since there’s a selection process that leads to that data. You can see why official records data and interview data on engaging in offending behavior would identify overlapping but non-identical populations of individuals, can you not?

I’m wondering if you take my observation as some criticism of the manner in which Virginia records crimes. It is not. And official records in this case are a decent proxy, to be sure. But it isn’t a systematic collection of data on gun crimes in Virginia bars. Especially when you add the bit about “spot checking.” Didn’t writing out “spot checking” as you were typing your answer make you pause for a second and think “Hmmm. Is “spot checking” consistent with “systematic”?

It also isn’t clear in the article whether they are talking about reports, charges or convictions, but that’s a separate issue.

@Bricker

It pertains to “gun crimes” which is not the same as gun violence.

I suppose that’s true, but the categories were the same for both years. What sorts of “gun violence” are you picturing that doesn’t get reported as a gun crime?

Brandishing, for instance, is a gun crime that is different from the connotation of “gun violence.” It’s also interesting that they exclude robbery. I’ve got no strong opposition to the construct of gun crimes, but I’d like to know specifically whether there are differences in homicides and firearm injuries as well.

@Bricker

You (or those making similar hay out of these numbers) can only presume or surmise regarding the key mechanism. That is, I’m interested in whether the presence of a greater number of firearms is associated with a greater number of incidents of firearm violence. Can you tell me the change between the two years in the number of firearms present?

Present in the bars? Not with any specificity. But it’s hard to imagine how the change in the law would have made the number go down, isn’t it? And why must I be allocated that burden? I favored the change in the law, claiming that gun crime would not increase. The law’s opponents were the ones claiming a change would occur.

Or did you mean guns present in the state of Virginia? Gun sales in Virgina rose 16 percent from 2010 to 2011.

I meant in terms of the linkages that you specifically are trying to draw. Whether they are relevant or not to the predictions that you or others made in the past, I don’t really care. Pertaining to the mileage that you want to get out of this – in particular extending it to implicate beliefs about global climate change or how liberals integrate information that is in contrast to their existing beliefs – is different than what you did or did not say in a previous thread. Is that understandable, or shall I elaborate?

@Bricker

4. There’s insufficient context for the two numbers you have.
   a. Temporally, how do these numbers compare to the prior years? (You’ve made a claim that the numbers have remained low; what are they, and how were they reported before the following reporting year has even concluded?)

Answered above. Did you read the linked newspaper article that explained this in some detail?

Great! Please point to me the number of gun crimes measured in the fiscal year 2008-2009? That way, if we see that the rate was dropping by 20% before this policy change, we might interpret it differently. Similarly, can you provide the data that you alluded to having for the period of time since July, 2011?

@Bricker

Proximally, how do the numbers compare to other states? For instance, violent crimes have broadly trended downward in the US as a whole over this period. What if the policy in Virginia had the impact of increasing gun crimes in bars, while at the same time, broader factors were working to reduce gun crimes in Virginia bars. What was the rate of gun crimes in bars in Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, etc during this same time period? What if the 8 case drop (5% of the total) you have pointed out compared to a 10% or 20% drop in other bars in other regions? Would you still feel it was compelling evidence that the Virginia law was not associated with a higher rate of gun crimes?

That’s not a bad question, but it allocates the burden of proof to me. Why? I was the one predicting no change; my opponents predicted an increase. I can show there was no increase – if they wish to claim that there was an increase masked by broader reasons, shouldn’t the burden be on them to substantiate those reasons?

Only to the degree that the discussion is about how liberals integrate information contrary to their beliefs. (After briefly skimming the predictive thread that you linked to, by the way, I didn’t see people making the predictions that you claim. I saw Diogenes saying “Who cares if drunken rednecks shoot each other?”, but no claims really as to whether the rate of drunken rednecks shooting each other would stay the same, increase or decrease. From the information presented, by the way, we cannot say whether the rate of drunken rednecks shooting each other increased, decreased or stayed the same, since we only are given 3 cases of individuals shooting others in or near bars in the year ending July, 2011, but not the number for the previous year (unless I missed it).

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Yes.

Because the proposition I asked for admissions on in that thread was NOT nebulous, and the evidence was not statistically insignificant.

I said, then:

Now, your point about statistical weakness certainly applies to the long haul.

But as to the specific question: in that first year, gun crime in bars did not rise. THAT is an issue on which we have reasonably full, competent data on which to rely.

Right?

That’s all I asked for. I specifically said I’d be happy with someone who said, “I still say in the long run that crime will rise, but I admit that I was wrong about what would happen this past year.”

We have enough data to answer that question confidently, don’t we?

How many people in that thread did, though?

OK, you made that request in post 142 of that thread that was, by that point, winding down. There were only a dozen more posts in the thread, and only one by someone who was, by your lights, on the wrong side of the issue.

And **Measure for Measure **admitted he was wrong.

I don’t get it, Bricker. Are you just assuming you can spout off bullshit about the thread on the assumption that we won’t go look at it?

[elucidator]

Seems to me, friend Bricker, that if your overall case were as strong as you seem to insist, you would not need this particular nugget of proof, you would have dozens right at your fingertips. I mean, if someone could refute that the horizon curves very slightly to an unimpeded view, I would still have oodles of proof that the Earth is round (it is, by the way…). I could toss that weak argument aside without a qualm.

To oversimplify, if your case is so strong, why do you need to cling so fiercely to evidence so easily controverted? Unless, of course, its all you got?

For myself, I see no reason to abandon my announced position of “Christ Jesus, keep the goddam things if they mean that much to you!”

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Shodan:

:Shrug:

Okay, if you say so. Seems an awful lot like hair-splitting to me, though.

Obviously you should post what you believe, regardless of the possibility you’re going to offend someone. It’s just that sometimes your posts seem so purposively obtuse, so – well, so stupid – that I have a hard time accepting you really believe them. Well, I shouldn’t say “sometimes.” I should say “practically all the time”. Take the OP, in which you very blatently and obviously miss the entire point of criticism against Romney. I mean, if you really want to effectively argue against jshore’s claims, it seems you would start by actually adressing them rather than flagrantly mischaracterising them.

On top of that, you seem to revel in provoking people.

The thread I linked to in my previous seems to be a community discussion of whether or not to consider you a troll. In defending yourself against the charges, you write a reply to Red Salamander:

*But, even though you are stupid and a troll, you have posted something (no doubt by the merest accident) that is correct. There is no earthly value in trying to have real discussion with the Usual Suspects (yourself included, since you are stupid and a troll). You and the rest of the shit-slingers are not capable of serious discussion on certain topics. Therefore, there is no earthly value in posting to engage you. Because, after all, you are stupid and a troll.

But laughing at you, making fun of your posts, and generally rubbing your nose in the fact that you are stupid and a troll - that has value. The only value that interacting with someone like you - stupid, and a troll - can have.*

Again, this seems to me to be a blatant admission that in response to certain posters, the only reason you reply them is to make fun of them (strangely couched as a denial that you are a troll). YMMV.

In addition, you’re Poster Child No. 1 for all the faults you accuse liberals of possessing.

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I’m wondering if you take my observation as some criticism of the manner in which Virginia records crimes. It is not. And official records in this case are a decent proxy, to be sure. But it isn’t a systematic collection of data on gun crimes in Virginia bars. Especially when you add the bit about “spot checking.” Didn’t writing out “spot checking” as you were typing your answer make you pause for a second and think “Hmmm. Is “spot checking” consistent with “systematic”?

Yes, it is. The purpose of the spot-checking is to identify whether there is any reason to question the state police records.

I’m curious – apart from police reports of gun crimes in bars, what more reliable way might we collect this information?

It also isn’t clear in the article whether they are talking about reports, charges or convictions, but that’s a separate issue.

Reports.

Brandishing, for instance, is a gun crime that is different from the connotation of “gun violence.” It’s also interesting that they exclude robbery. I’ve got no strong opposition to the construct of gun crimes, but I’d like to know specifically whether there are differences in homicides and firearm injuries as well.

Where did you get the idea they exclude robberies? They don’t. And brandishing is assault under Virginia law.

I meant in terms of the linkages that you specifically are trying to draw. Whether they are relevant or not to the predictions that you or others made in the past, I don’t really care. Pertaining to the mileage that you want to get out of this – in particular extending it to implicate beliefs about global climate change or how liberals integrate information that is in contrast to their existing beliefs – is different than what you did or did not say in a previous thread. Is that understandable, or shall I elaborate?

Elaborate. Because I’m not trying to draw any broader pictures than the very simple one I highlighted in that thread: despite the obvious and incontrovertible fact that predictions about a rise in gun crime did not come to pass, few people would be willing to admit they were wrong, in contrast to the weight of the evidence.

Great! Please point to me the number of gun crimes measured in the fiscal year 2008-2009? That way, if we see that the rate was dropping by 20% before this policy change, we might interpret it differently. Similarly, can you provide the data that you alluded to having for the period of time since July, 2011?

Again: why is this burden mine?

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

OK, you made that request in post 142 of that thread that was, by that point, winding down. There were only a dozen more posts in the thread, and only one by someone who was, by your lights, on the wrong side of the issue.

And **Measure for Measure **admitted he was wrong.

I don’t get it, Bricker. Are you just assuming you can spout off bullshit about the thread on the assumption that we won’t go look at it?

Yes, Measure did – for which I lauded him.

And that’s it. One person did. Why would the thread be “winding down” then? Others undoubtedly read the request and chose to stay silent.

[RTFirefly]

Shodan applies the word ‘troll’ to so many posters that I guess we’re all trolls under this bridge.

Not sure what point he sees in hanging around with a whole MB full of trolls, but it takes all kinds.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Yes, Measure did – for which I lauded him.

And that’s it. One person did. Why would the thread be “winding down” then? Others undoubtedly read the request and chose to stay silent.

Can you name or count the gun control supporters who read your request and stayed silent?

No, you can’t.

That’s evidence? Good Lord, I hope most lawyers are smarter than you.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…Elaborate. Because I’m not trying to draw any broader pictures than the very simple one I highlighted in that thread: despite the obvious and incontrovertible fact that predictions about a rise in gun crime did not come to pass, few people would be willing to admit they were wrong, in contrast to the weight of the evidence…

Could be a simple matter of habit. Would you expect that there would be a sharp increase in people carrying firearms when they go drinking, simply because it was suddenly legal?

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Can you name or count the gun control supporters who read your request and stayed silent?

No, you can’t.

That’s evidence? Good Lord, I hope most lawyers are smarter than you.

No, I can’t.

But this is the sort of nit-picking I’m talking about. If I said that you, specifically, had read the thread but stayed silent, you’d have a point… I have no way of knowing if you did or not.

But for me to say that some other posters did is a very safe thing to say.

With the many posters that read the thread, it would boggle the mind to imagine that not one poster read the thread after I asked for such an admission.

But look at what you’re asking of me: if I can’t name them, they don’t exist.

You have no problem demanding that we accept tree rings as evidence of climate change. You’d laugh at those who demanded you throw out extrapolations of data from missing years. Right? And so would I, because I know – unlike you – that just because we can’t point to a thermometer in Florida in the year 1450, we can still construct valid extrapolations of temperature there.

But when it comes to this… suddenly, the standard is “prove every jot and tittle, or it didn’t happen.”

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Could be a simple matter of habit. Would you expect that there would be a sharp increase in people carrying firearms when they go drinking, simply because it was suddenly legal?

No.

Funny I don’t recall you piping up with that observation when the law was under debate. Did you?

[CannyDan]

Bricker, what more can I say than **RT **and Hentor, who were faster than me (and more erudite)? This is just another of your false equivalences, the kind we all find so infuriating. There is nothing remotely comparable about the global warming evidence and your “data” regarding “gun crimes”. And there is nothing remotely comparable between a perceived lack of instant and overwhelming affirmation for your offering by SDMB liberals, and global warming deniers.

I think my liberal chops have been quite evident on this Board, so I note simply as an aside that I own a number of guns, have a concealed carry permit, and really didn’t expect much difference in Virginia’s gun crime level when carry into bars became legal. I read the entire thread at the time but, as is common for me, didn’t bother to participate. How does that skew your ‘evidence’?

Now can’t we all just drop this unproductive tangent and get back to the business of pitting that slimy troll Shodan?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

No.

Funny I don’t recall you piping up with that observation when the law was under debate. Did you?

First I heard of it. Of course, my memory isn’t what it used to be. Or maybe it is, and I don’t remember.

But the answer is “no”, then? Well, that certainly settles that!

[VinylTurnip]

@RTFirefly

Not sure what point he sees in hanging around with a whole MB full of trolls, but it takes all kinds.

As he said, it’s partly for the enjoyment of sharing his posts that contain substance as well as snark. I’ve been waiting ten years to see one, so I’m really looking forward to it.