Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

You continue to be most amusing! The OP is irrelevant. It is spurious drivel, by definition. There's no debate in it. Then, when confronted with an empirical study, the best you can do is copy and paste a paragraph which acknowledges there is no such thing as a perfect study! Could you dispute the conclusions? Nope. Could you suggest a paper that eliminates perceived shortcomings and indicate nonrobustness in the empirical relationship? Nope.

 

So by omission, you are conveying you have no proof their money had any impact on the politicians they donated to.

 

I understand you believe your opinion overrules any other opinion or fact presented in opposition to it. That is most certainly the most amusing thing being displayed on this thread.

As in intellectual, and objectively, you must certainly understand that is not how it works.

You've failed to support your absolutes, and your dismissive style on this thread only serves to underscore that reality.

 

Let's be clear here. Millions aren't given to politicians for free. Your stance is that the NRA are either cretinous and cannot influence or that they're somehow a charitable agency fighting politician poverty. You continue to be a goldmine!

 

Wrong again. My opinion is irrelevant. This is about correct application of evidence. Raw data is only useful if a multivariable approach is not needed (ie there is a simple binary relationship between guns and crime). No credible position would suggest that. Criminology confirms multiple factors and therefore the need to isolate gun effects.

When I was a nipper I was taught basic research methods. That of course relies on literature review methods. All these years later, when I'm approaching death, I can still adopt best practice. Here, for example, I've mentioned multiple empirical studies. How many have you achieved?

I don't dismiss the credible. Crikey, I gave you an opportunity to refer to more recent evidence. I was really hoping you'd manage it. Kleck, for example, has a couple recent quality publications. Unfortunately you couldn't achieve it, preferring instead to support spurious relationship (which is worthless, by definition)

 

You are most amusing yourself Reiver.

You're running from your absolutes, and failing to prove anything, but you're insisting you have facts, which appear to only be born of subjective opinion.

It seems that is the solid foundation you've used on this thread to support your preaching from Mt. Olympus.

 

Yet, with all this bloviating, and despite my invitation to provide some, you've offered no proof, and to my knowledge, you've only offered one link to a study that admits it lacks the data to draw a definitive conclusion.

I think we're done here.

Have a good day!

 

True, the idea of a politician benevolence fund did tickle!

I'm happy for you to dig deeper! Why do you think the NRA have given millions to politicians? I'd love to hear your rationale

 

No problem, thanks for the laugh. Spend a few days researching so you can actually refer to the evidence with a resemblance of credibility .

 

It's rather disgraceful to skulk away in the manner you have here.

You've lost the debate by reason of failure to support your position with facts, and yet you chose to throw out some dig about my credibility?

I would not expect such an adolescent bon voyage from someone who presents themselves as such a superior thinker.

 

You haven't referred to any evidence. In contrast, I've referred to multiple papers. I have rightly rejected spurious relationship. You have supported it.

You can of course put that right. Looking forward to it!

 

They are simple facts available from the FBI... in the last series of posts, I made no inference from the two facts I posted. You made an assumption that my posts were making a point. Regardless, the two facts I posted were derived from, but were not the Raw Data. And, the data used to track the trends are derived from the very same authority that is used for any nation wide study regarding guns or crime.
Regarding your statement about pro-gunners, where’s your empiracle evidence to support your implied conclusion about pro-gunners?

Many here, even among those advocating gun rights find issue with campaign costs as well, however, regardless of the issue or candidate, that money drives and wins elections in never ending cycles is a reality that cannot be ignored.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

One piece of the puzzle missing on the Hillary side was the untold millions in free propoganda the mainstream press threw in behind her.
It’s obscene, but is what it is and not likely to change in my lifetime.

 

Sounds like you don't understand terminology. You are reliant on using raw data which can only show times series or cross sectional trend. Unless it's used within an empirical methodology, that's all you have. It's of no particular value (unless there is a purpose in referring to trends; e.g. using it to justify a particular methodology such as structural break analysis)

It's possible to do. You'd have to use software to capture use of key terms such as journal and regression. You could then run an analysis which tests for significant differences in linguistics according to argument.

I won't bother mind you. Last time I encountered a pro-gunner on here who could refer to the evidence with validity was 2012. No need to empirically test it.

Disgust at influence costs should be universal. Note, however, I've already had a pro-gunner trying to hide from it and therefore offering tacit support.

Not quite the same though is it? Did the elite support Clinton? Certainly. I have nothing but disdain for that. But I've referred to a 'single issue' exploitation of the pressure group system.

 

Last, first. While it should be universal to have distant for campaign funding/costs, those passionate about their points of view will often pay to support them amid the competition for votes. Congress could change campaign funding and it’s been discussed. But to expect politicians to actually propose legislation limiting campaign funding is like expecting they would vote to give up control of their pay, vote for term limits, suppress special interest group lobbying, and actually live under the laws they pass (think health care). The fox in the hen house aren’t going to vote to become vegan.

In you characterization of pro gunners, you suggest you need not do an empiracle study to generalize about them based on your subjective and biased opinion, yet you dismiss ever reference to simple 2 simple and obvious facts about increase in guns and decrease of violent crime, continuing suggest more guns = more crime. That simple statement of a hypothesis is based on two variables. When questioned, you insist any relationship inferred is spurious, that other variables are involved... if so, more guns = more crime fails every time as a hypothesis because the formula would be more guns + (x) = more crime. There is an obvious relationship between the two facts, a temporal one. It is one that causes the simple hypothesis, more guns = more crime, to fail and raises the question, why? If guns + (x) = more crime, then what is ‘x’? And, further what is ‘x’ to guns and is there a direct correlation of gunsx:crime? No study, not one has defined ‘x’. Both the 2003 and 2012 government funded Studies acknowleged that and left suggestions for improving data collection and analysis to sort out what ‘x’ might be, both suggesting additionally, no conclusions except the simple premise more guns = more crime has not been proven.
As for raw data... all research is fully dependent on raw data. The efficacy of any analysis, empirical, or not is fully dependent upon the quality, accuracy, completeness (for purpose) and suitability of the underlying data. One aspect of whether the data can be used to support a robust analysis, and certainly of inferred conclusions, is how well a framework of hypothesis/study fits observation and prediction. On the surface, the two facts I posted do not fit the more guns = more crime model, explained by you, again as spurious to any correlation because of other,complex factors...the undefined ‘x’. So, ‘x’ must be accounted for either in variables, a broader spectrum of data collection, and/or hypothesis scope.

There is only one way more guns = more crime and that is to eliminate on of the variables. Guns or crime, neighter likely in a free state.

We can discuss on a continuing basis. No one has provided a full and robust model that supports all of the observations in the US regardless of the study methodology. That is fact...or, we wouldn’t be arguing. Attacking those commenting from a level of arrogance and self defined superiority doesn’t establish a dialog for understanding; it merely creates opposition to anything you confer whether of merit of no.

 

Taking back control is the first step. We have huge levels of influence costs. Party funding is also heavily skewed towards the rich elite. Our reaction? Massive increase in individual activism. Winning change through the power of the individual.

Wrong again! I have no biased opinion. My stance is purely the result of adopting an objective evidence-based approach.

Criminology is a rich field. It is not difficult to control for factors consistent with alternative schools of thought. That ensures gun effects are isolated and spurious conclusion can be minimised. Will there be problems with any individual study? Of course. While it is easy to test for issues such as omitted variable bias, it is importance that review techniques are adopted. Is Kleck's work important? Of course. Is it a minor part of the literature, with the vast majority of research supporting the more guns=more crime hypothesis? Again, of course.

That is the purpose of raw data: to allow properly conducted empirical study. The idea that you can take raw data and then crow 'its a fact' is not cunning. As I said, there is only very specific circumstances where raw data comparisons are worthwhile; those circumtances typically refer to illuminating the type of empirical methodology that should be adopted.

This merely opens up additional requirement for empirical analysis. As I've previously said, the problem with raw data is that its often aggregated such that more accurate empirical methodologies cannot be used. This opens up the need for proxy variables which then allow for more detailed disaggregated approaches. Now folk will often cry foul over the use of these proxies. But the empirical approach necessarily includes further tests to check that these proxies are not engineering empirical bias. The wealth of robustness checks available eliminates problems associated with researcher bias.

We simply have to adopt review techniques. Is there evidence one regression methodology leads to a particular outcome? Is there evidence of publication bias? Is there evidence of time series effects? It isn't difficult to include all of these issues, and more, if you bother to review all of the research. The problem of course is that the pro-gunner isn't interested in that. Such review would challenge core beliefs and generate emotional dissonance.

We don't need a full and robust model. We just need consistent evidence that the 'more guns=more crime' cannot be rejected. That has been achieved. The research process now is typically focused on narrowing the confidence interval over the overall negative externalities generated by gun preferences.

 

Like the many times Military Arms are stolen and end up in Criminals possession ???

 

It is a simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand question that is being presented to yourself. Where is the evidence, the actual proof, that the individual John McCain actually engaged in a behavior he would normally have never engaged in otherwise, and did so because of the contribution by the NRA?

 

The only way to prove it is to do it.

 

You fail to understand how many years I have been extrapolating the issues involved in gun control by direct observations, the years I spent as a Constable in a Country, with very strict Gun control, and for concealed carry, all manner of Government vetting, a psychological test, licenses, yet, criminals still obtained guns, or substituted other weapons.

Gun control looks great on paper, and works miracles, in theory and grammar and hypothesis and a thesis, scientific evidence, however, the human element is unpredictable, a variable, not a constant.

There is no way you can produce a study to predict any data on criminality as it relates to people dwelling in slums and Ghettos living on the fringe of criminality and poverty and disenfranchisement and utilizing guns as a tool of the trade,
Gangs and related crimes.

Yet what is the recommended action ?
More gun control.
On a segment of society not involved in criminal acts or behaviors.

 

True, but it has worked in other countries. There are people with guns who have posted on this site and they are volatile. They drive when drunk, gun in tow, are know-it-alls and are unstable. What to do about them? They think that gun ownership makes them impervious to criminals with bad intentions and may make an error in judgment, resulting in innocent people dying. Yes, we need
a more stringent form of gun control relative to ownership.

 

Relating gun ownership and crime is hardly spurious. They go hand in hand.

 

The OP rejects this "fact".

 

Did anyone ever consider that perhaps more gun ownership is a result of higher crime rates? People living in places with high crime rates will probably want to own a gun.

 

More Guns, Less Crime
https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/MGLC-3rd-Edition.pdf

 

An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html