Thread: Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

Originally Posted by Thinker

What evidence! Come on your not putting any. And you have to admit that knife crimes and misc weap. crimes will rise if there are gun laws.

A quick review of this sub forum will show that I refer to the published evidence the most: numerous articles testing the gun/crime hypothesis (Cook and Ludwig, Duggan, Gius etc etc etc) and articles that test gun control effects directly (e.g. Kwon and Baack). Here, however, I've referenced directly an analysis into the Australian's buyback scheme. That you haven't noticed that I adopt an evidence-based approach (which of course, given how hypothesis testing works, ensures also an appreciation of criminology theory in order to avoid 'data mining') only suggests that your ideological leads to a result that isn't friendly to observation. Join the herd!

Originally Posted by Reiver

A quick review of this sub forum will show that I refer to the published evidence the most: numerous articles testing the gun/crime hypothesis (Cook and Ludwig, Duggan, Gius etc etc etc) and articles that test gun control effects directly (e.g. Kwon and Baack). Here, however, I've referenced directly an analysis into the Australian's buyback scheme. That you haven't noticed that I adopt an evidence-based approach (which of course, given how hypothesis testing works, ensures also an appreciation of criminology theory in order to avoid 'data mining') only suggests that your ideological leads to a result that isn't friendly to observation. Join the herd!

Homicide

The most recent NHMP report (Virueda & Payne 2010) indicated that in 2007–08, more homicide victims died from stab wounds than from any other single cause of death. The number of homicides involving knives had remained relatively unchanged since 1989–90, although due to the decline in firearm homicides, knife-related homicides comprised a larger proportion of homicides recorded in the more recent data. In both 2006–07 and 2007–08, knives/sharp instruments were involved in 43 percent of homicides; by way of comparison, in 2000, knives and other sharp instruments accounted for only 30 percent of homicides.
http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide.aspx

Government study but you will say it means nothing because your opinion means more. Arrogance; the brain killer!

Originally Posted by Archer0915

Homicide



Government study but you will say it means nothing because your opinion means more. Arrogance; the brain killer!

Your post is an exercise in irrelevance; the only issue is whether you already realise that. We know that there are numerous factors that impact on homicide rates. That provokes numerous debates, such as Ehrlich's analysis into deterrence effects and whether 'crimes of passion' can be included (given the assumption of rational economic man must necessarily be maintained). However, for this thread we have something simple: isolate gun effects and we have (1) Gun prevalence is positively related to social costs (i.e. by isolating gun effects, the hypothesis 'more guns=more crime' is supported); (2) Gun control, other things equal, is found to reduce death rates

Abstract

In this paper, an overview is presented of recent data on the carriage and use of knives. Analysis of the data indicated an increase in the use of knives as a proportion of all homicides, although the number of homicides remained relatively constant. The proportionate use of knives in robberies, by contrast, remained fairly constant, while the number of robberies decreased dramatically.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/c.../tandi417.aspx

Originally Posted by Reiver

Your post is an exercise in irrelevance; the only issue is whether you already realise that. We know that there are numerous factors that impact on homicide rates. That provokes numerous debates, such as Ehrlich's analysis into deterrence effects and whether 'crimes of passion' can be included (given the assumption of rational economic man must necessarily be maintained). However, for this thread we have something simple: isolate gun effects and we have (1) Gun prevalence is positively related to social costs (i.e. by isolating gun effects, the hypothesis 'more guns=more crime' is supported); (2) Gun control, other things equal, is found to reduce death rates

(*)(*)(*)(*) you. The information does not fit your view so you dismiss it.

You fail

Originally Posted by Archer0915

(*)(*)(*)(*) you. The information does not fit your view so you dismiss it.

I merely have bothered with the evidence. Once you do that discounting simple errors like rant based on spurious relationship really isn't taxing. Of course the more pertinent remarks are over, for example, acknowledgement of the empirical flaws in Lott's work. One just can't foot stamp and have a tantrum though (we're leave that to the herd who religiously follow and share your ideology). One can objectively reject based on a clear lack of robustness.

Originally Posted by Reiver

I merely have bothered with the evidence. Once you do that discounting simple errors like rant based on spurious relationship really isn't taxing. Of course the more pertinent remarks are over, for example, acknowledgement of the empirical flaws in Lott's work. One just can't foot stamp and have a tantrum though (we're leave that to the herd who religiously follow and share your ideology). One can objectively reject based on a clear lack of robustness.

FAIL MAN. Link me a counter or do the work yourself citing your sources.

So put up or (*)(*)(*)(*)

Originally Posted by Archer0915

FAIL MAN. Link me a counter or do the work yourself citing your sources.

Counter? You haven't said anything relevant. You'd need, for example, to refer to a study that directly tests gun and knife substitution effects. We both know that you can't. You only have spurious relationship grunt

Originally Posted by Reiver

Counter? You haven't said anything relevant. You'd need, for example, to refer to a study that directly tests gun and knife substitution effects. We both know that you can't. You only have spurious relationship grunt

When you stop pulling (*)(*)(*)(*) covered lies out of your ass I might try to discuss this with your dumb ass. You run you ignorant mouth and go in pointless circles with ignorant rants about how you presented this or that.

Now counter what I have posted. Studies have shown that as guns go out, knives come into play more. Show me some hard data refuting this and not empirical BS you pull out of your ass.

Originally Posted by Archer0915

Now counter what I have posted.

I'll go through it again for you, real slow like: There is nothing (nil, zilch, fanny adams) to counter. You've give a tedious reference to spurious relationship. There's no excuse for it either as I've already educated you fellows over what you need to do: refer to evidence that shows substitution effects. Can you? Can you achieve relevancy?

Studies have shown that as guns go out, knives come into play more.

Reference one!