Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ChrisLomont 1483 days ago
> Oh look, big drops in 1992

The data I just posted shows a 22% increase in 1992, 38% down in 1993, 35% up in 1994, 32% down in 1995, 12% up in 1996, 23% up in 1997, .....

There was drops before 1992 also, e.g. 16% down in 1991. Maybe the laws were not the magic cause of all this?

Know what trendlines are? Time smoothed analysis?

>and 2009

Data shows up 30% in 2009. I just posted the data.

I guess you ignore trendlines, right? Can I point to the large years of increase and simply claim the laws completely failed? You only seem able to point to successes and ignore failures.....

>The fact is that New Zealand has repeatedly tightened gun laws, and repeatedly seen corresponding drops in gun homicides.

The fact is also that the US saw fewer laws and had a much bigger drop [1] in homicide rates during the same period.... Is this evidence New Zealand's laws reduced the drop they would have gotten without any laws? This is the kind of voodoo you're chasing.

The fact is, as I've now written many times, is lots of countries saw the same drops without such laws. The question was do such laws cause the reductions, or are there other causes. Since cross country data shows these drops without such laws, that is strong evidence that the laws are not responsible for the drops. Criminology rese3atrch points more likely to reduction of lead in the environment being the cause.

If you really want to learn - lead paint was banned in New Zealand in 1979, gas phased out starting in 1986.... Australia stopped most lead paint use in 1970, and slowly banned it completely. US banned paint in 1978, This repeats all over the first world......

Want to see a source? [2]. Go ahead and keep beating the dead horse, and ignore that there is a really plausible, well-researched explanation for these drops, and it's not the one you keep implying is the reason.

You keep picking small pieces of data, ignoring counter facts, missing the overall trend, and ignoring the evidence I cite. Your "about" comment on your profile seems apt. I'm done.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murd...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Effect_on_crime...

1 comments

The relevant data point for 1992 is the year after the amendment. That's a 39% drop from 1992 (1.9) to 1993 (1.16). Similarly, the relevant data for 2009 is the year after. That's down 36.5% from 2009 (1.55) to 2010 (0.98). Those are the two biggest drops on the chart. Citing the years before the law changes - in anticipation of changes that hadn't happened yet - is either asinine or dishonest. We don't do time travel around here.

> Know what trendlines are?

The trend line is from 1.86 in 1990 to 0.74 in 2017, as successively more restrictive laws were enacted. Apparently I'm not the one who needs to learn how to read a chart.

> lead paint was banned in New Zealand in 1979, gas phased out starting in 1986

And what were the effects on gun deaths in New Zealand? Why don't you cite those? Oh, I think we know. Those arguments are both post hoc and red herrings. You can add those to your collection, along with cherry picking and goalpost moving. Yes, you're done all right. Positively toasty.