‘It’s just horrifying’: Seven killed in Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in 22 years

That sure worked to get rid of alcohol, heroin and cocaine - didn't it?

 

You made an error here. The black economy cannot be eliminated. However, the analysis into drug demand shows significant price elasticity of demand (and therefore laws which increase the price of the illegal product do indeed reduce demand)

 

In fact, Science Fraud is common. There is big money in it.

"Neuroscientist Edward Awh lost four papers in 2015 after David Anderson, one of his graduate students, admitted to falsifying data. In an unusual turn of events, Anderson responded to our request for comment by taking full responsibility for his actions, which he said resulted from an “error in judgment.”
THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015.
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/

 

Again with the irrelevance. We are talking about studies using publically available data and well known empirical methodologies that can be replicated easily. And, as usual, you cannot refer to any evidence that the authors have faked their results. The charge is cretinous.

 

Have you ever heard of Martial arts? Great Self-defense tool to use against the bad guys. Pour out another glass of Ale and kick back.

 

The laws are not strictly enforced are they?

 

Enforce the laws then see the results.

 

And, you still dismiss the two facts; over the last two decades the US has a dramatic increase in the number of guns in civilian hands and violent crime has significantly decreased. Without implying a direct causation, there is a negative correlation.

No study has ever proven to isolate the specific causal factors that would support more guns = more crime on par with evidence and analysis seen among the physical sciences.

From the bastion of liberalism, there is this comparative study, which shares so many observations that run counter to the more guns = more crime hypothesis to render it at best null.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Which concluded,

[/QUOTE]
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur‐ den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐ cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
[/QUOTE]

 

This is such a naive comment. No one says that only guns impact on crime. I certainly think other factors are more important (particularly economic variables). You look for spurious conclusion when the research avoids it. You then attack the research for not agreeing.

Wrong again. The methods used by criminologists are also used in the physical sciences. The only difference is that only quasi natural experiments are possible. This merely informs us of the need to use a diversity in empirical methodology and not to be reliant on any specific study.

Another basic error. That isn't a study. That is a poorly constructed review. It doesn't even manage to include the main empirical papers available at the time. That takes effort in slackness!

 

"Cretinous"? That kind of silly ad hominem dismissal is not very effective here.

"Now, a painstaking years long effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested. The analysis was done by research psychologists, many of whom volunteered their time to double-check what they considered important work. Their conclusions, reported Thursday in the journal Science, have confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that the field needed a strong correction.

The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory. Therapists and educators rely on such findings to help guide decisions, and the fact that so many of the studies were called into question could sow doubt in the scientific underpinnings of their work." By Benedict Carey, Aug. 27, 2015.
NEW YORK TIMES, Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says,
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/...ings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html

Hint: what does it mean when the results of scientific studies cannot be reproduced?

Scientists are fudging their data - it is now a crisis.

 

You are talking about regressing back to stone age standards, no thanks. Older people are even more susceptible to brute force, or are they supposed to just take it because you are afraid of inanimate objects? I think not...

 

We have millions in prison for violating drug laws.

 

Guns are the great equalizer. That is why dangerous governments want to ban them.

 

I can understand Americans getting cranky when non-Americans bring up firearms control in the the US. I get cranky when people misrepresent the Australian experience for their own ideological ends. Truth is you can't and shouldn't compare. I know some gun control advocates have pointed to our experience and how America can learn from it. Sorry, that's not going to wash. About all we can tell you is that less guns means less armed incidents. We have less guns - on a per capita basis - because we have a different culture. No good looking at us for lessons for America, the guns won't go away overnight. That horse has not only bolted, it took off over the hill, picked up a mob of mares and is heading for the far pasture.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that this was an atypical event. It was also an event that could have happened - as has been mentioned - with the use of a weapon other than a firearm. That's actually very clear-minded. The firearms allowed more efficient dispatch of the victims, that's all. This is plainly a situation where the grandfather couldn't hack it any longer and dispatched everyone. It wasn't some nutter firing into a crowd of country music fans from a hotel balcony. It was a domestic situation.

This is a similar one that happened years ago:

The Bartholomew family - 1971

The 18-month-old nephew of Clifford Cecil Bartholomew was the last to be killed, shot through the head at point-blank range while he lay sleeping in his cot.

Bartholomew, then 40, had just shot and killed the other nine members of his family at a remote farmhouse in Hope Forest, near Willunga, in what was then Australia's worst mass murder.

He then sat down and had a beer, before remembering his toddler nephew was still alive and reloaded his gun.

Hours before, Bartholomew had snapped. He later wrote that with the "screaming noises that was splitting my head wide open, and that horrible look on my wife's face, I couldn't control my actions".

Bartholomew had become convinced his wife, 40, was having an affair with a Vietnam soldier staying at the farm. Police later determined she wasn't.

Bartholomew had moved out, but the family had a Father's Day dinner that night. He'd intercepted a letter from the soldier to his wife. He stormed off and came back about 1am with two rifles and a rubber mallet.


Murderer Clifford Cecil Bartholomew with police after his arrest.
He walked into the house and hit his wife with the mallet, before shooting her. As the family was roused with the noises, he systematically shot them all - his sister-in-law, his seven children ranging in age from 19 to 4, and then his nephew.

Bartholomew made a coffee, took some aspirin, and covered the bodies with blankets. He called a local doctor and told him what he'd done.

When the police arrived that morning - one of them was legendary SA detective Allen Arthur, on one of his first major cases - he was sitting in the kitchen, with an empty Bacardi bottle beside him.

During the police interviews that followed, he told police he "had to kill all of his family".

"Once I had shot Christine, I realised I had to kill all of them,'' he said. "I loved my children that much, I couldn't leave any of them behind.''

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...3c71ff269?sv=1a79618aeb75af2e77a33fdf2bc9e38c

This isn't about "armed criminals", it's what happens when someone goes nuts and has easy access to a firearm or any other weapon.

 

I could have easily written your post as a prediction. I cast doubt that you carefully read and evaluated the posted link or followed any of the sources referenced in the time I posted and you responded.
As for isolating causal factors in the gun/crime correlation; hasn’t been done, certainly not with statistical means. If it had been, any change the number of guns would be reflected by a corresponding, and predictable change in crime.
As for the study, all you have ever presented is your perusal of the literature, but with far less scrutiny than the Harvard review. And, I don’t see your name on any ‘emirical’ Work. One aspect of the Harvard piece is the number of observations that cast doubt on the hypothesis you support.
If you think it a Not a study one that is ‘a poorly constructed review.’ Then show why. Your suggestion that ‘It doesn't even manage to include the main empirical papers available at the time.’ simply means it didn’t examine those studies that you find appealing to your bias.
The paper has a number of observations that run counter to the simple ‘more guns = more crime’ hypothisis, observations that must be logically accounted for, in any examination of your supported hypothisis.
I have been doing scientific research, field work, data analysis, and publishing most of my life. One thing I find is that with any explanation model I build, any observation or anomaly that doesn’t fit, must be explained or the model is incorrect or must be expanded.
In quantum physics we have a predictive framework for understanding called the standard model. Thus far, the predictions enabled from that model have been surprisingly accurate. But, researchers are still have unanswered questions, still search for any observation/exeriment that suggests it is wrong or needs to be expanded... there is always that question of do we know what we think we know and how does that model fit a broader model that unifies quantum theory with relativity..... String Theory? Maybe, maybe not.
I defy you to provide a model that predicts more guns = more crime and accounts for all the counter observations in the Harvard paper.

 

Fact

Until you yourself learn how to critique academic papers this conspiracy theory is worth nothing. It is a lazy way out. It is calling fake news when the tools to really determine what is true and what is not are within your grasp. There are hundreds of thousands of research papers out there. Don't believe me? Try google scholar. Enter scholar into google then use google scholar to search the reasearch databases and each search you enter will bring up hundreds if not thousands of results - not all will be exact to what you requested but it will blow you mind how much is out there

I can teach you some of the basics. Riever is a whiz at the stats so I suggest you read his posts and learn.

Yes there are a couple of bad papers out ther but given the thousands published each year it represents a tiny minority of the whole

True critique of papers starts with checking for bias - who paid for the "research ie was it the drug company selling the drug? Then you look at the journal. Was it an appropriate journal? There have been some fake climate denial papers snuck through because they were published in journals that would have not been able to peer review the content appropriately. What is the impact of the journal itself? Is it a well known journal in its field? Does it have a strong peer review process? You can even cheat and google "critique" Kleck Defensive gun use and you will find this https://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck

So a similar process - who are they? Is there a source of bias? What is the reterrencing like? Have they backed thier statements with research based results?

 

Well I am waiting for the full evidence and full critique

 

Reiver is FOS. Get past the lingo and it's all BS.

 

LMAO, It's all gibberish and made up. However, you bought it. Completely laughable.

 

Thought it was

I was just calling you out

 

No you didn't. You swallowed it whole and thought it was for real.

 

Wasting your time. He’ll just move the goal posts. It’s what he does.

 

Regardless of what may or may not be thought on the part of yourself, it does not change the confirmed fact that no firearm-related restriction, none whatsoever, can actually, physically prevent access to firearms by those who should not have them. It simply does not work that way, and no degree of enforcement, hypothetical or otherwise, will ever change such.

 

It is an argument that has been rejected by reality itself in various states.

 

Most elderly are frail and unable to fire a weapon anyhow.