Closed Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 21 of 60 FirstFirst ... 1117181920212223242531 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 596

Thread: Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

  1. #201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpotsCat View Post
    I must admit, the constant dodging of questions
    Incorrect 1! I always refer accurately to the subject area. That is a very important element. The problem is that you don't, as shown by my ability to get you to admit that you're reliant purely on spurious relationship

    the continual posting of studies that have minimal bearing on the issue
    Incorrect 2! I refer specifically to published peer reviewed studies that test gun hypothesis. Its darn obviously the correct approach, but you know that you cannot do the same as the evidence is against you

    plus the continuous dismissal of anything that contradicts the "accepted" studies does tend to get aggravating at times.
    Incorrect 3! I don't think I've seen, for example, you refer to one study. You ignore the evidence as the evidence is against you. I'm happy to consider any source of course. I do expect to see gun effects to be isolated (that's mere rationality!) and I do expect to see robustness checks (that's mere basic literature reviewing).
    Last edited by Reiver; Feb 14 2012 at 12:04 PM.


  2. #202

    Default

    Just make sure to separate the police shootings, self inflicted intentional shootings, justifiable shootings in self defense, from the criminal shootings. And by criminal, don't count TECHNICALLY criminal shootings, such as stupidly restrictive gun laws, etc. You will find your stats come out much more in favor of gun ownership that you think they will.
    "Some people, you just can't reach, which is the way they want it"

  3. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greatgeezer View Post
    You will find your stats come out much more in favor of gun ownership that you think they will.
    Don't come out short here! Can you refer to a study in support of your argument? It would be great to see you improving on the standards set by the previous fellows in this thread

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Incorrect 1! I always refer accurately to the subject area. That is a very important element. The problem is that you don't, as shown by my ability to get you to admit that you're reliant purely on spurious relationship
    I'm not reliant on any "spurious relationship", I'm merely posting the FACTS, not some "peer reviewed" hypothesis. Private ownership of firearms in Australia has been heavily restricted for over 20 years, but the overall homicide rate remains constant. Ergo, the "more guns = more crime" hypothesis is incorrect, because if it were, then the opposite - "less guns = less crime" would be correct. But in this case, it isn't.

    Incorrect 2! I refer specifically to published peer reviewed studies that test gun hypothesis. Its darn obviously the correct approach, but you know that you cannot do the same as the evidence is against you
    Apparently your "...peer reviewed studies that test gun hypothesis" don't hold water in light of the facts.

    Incorrect 3! I don't think I've seen, for example, you refer to one study. You ignore the evidence as the evidence is against you. I'm happy to consider any source of course. I do expect to see gun effects to be isolated (that's mere rationality!) and I do expect to see robustness checks (that's mere basic literature reviewing).
    After referring to numerous Dept. of Justice and FBI reports, and having them dismissed by you because they weren't "peer reviewed", I realized that it was futile. Why waste my time when my ice cream is melting?

    All your prattling, all your obfuscation, all your denial doesn't change this simple fact - In spite of the restrictions placed on private ownership of firearms in Australia, the overall homicide rate remains almost constant.

    Since you can't explain why, or admit that your studies may be incorrect, you attempt to sidetrack the issue with obtuse and grandiose statements about "studies", and "peer reviews", and "ceteris parabus".

    That's the way you operate. You know it, I know it, and anyone who has ever posted in this sub-forum knows it.

    If you doubt that, ask around. Unfortunately, you won't be able to find any peer reviewed studies that test that hypothesis.

    If you'll excuse me, I must get some air - I've spent too much time in "The Reiver Vortex".
    Last edited by SpotsCat; Feb 14 2012 at 12:49 PM.
    SpotsCat is a ® trademark of SpotsCat Intergalactic Enterprises LLC, All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use of the exceptionally witty material contained herein shall be prostituted to the fullest extent. Trespassers will be shot. No glass bottles in the pool area. Brush your teeth and wear clean underwear.


  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpotsCat View Post
    I'm not reliant on any "spurious relationship", I'm merely posting the FACTS, not some "peer reviewed" hypothesis.
    The use of raw data will at least encourage spurious conclusion, given there are no controls for the other crime impacting variables. However, you've clearly (and tiresomely too without any sense of humour) gone for a spurious relationship deliberately.

    Private ownership of firearms in Australia has been heavily restricted for over 20 years, but the overall homicide rate remains constant.
    Again, we have empirical evidence that successfully tests the hypothesis that gun control has reduced death rates. That there are other variables at play is obvious, as you well know.

    Ergo, the "more guns = more crime" hypothesis is incorrect, because if it were, then the opposite - "less guns = less crime" would be correct. But in this case, it isn't.
    This is drivel. Hypothesis testing, by definition, has to isolate the variables being tested.

    Apparently your "...peer reviewed studies that test gun hypothesis" don't hold water in light of the facts.
    This is splendidly silly comment! We're talking about quantitative evidence that is free from spurious grunt, with techniques that avoid empirical bias and provide for tests of robustness.

    After referring to numerous Dept. of Justice and FBI reports, and having them dismissed by you because they weren't "peer reviewed", I realized that it was futile.
    Incorrect again! I haven't rejected reports. I've rejected your deliberate use of the reports to make spurious conclusion. The reports themselves aren't guilty of such folly.

    Again, your whole reaction is but a tantrum-based reaction to what you know: the evidence doesn't support you

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpotsCat View Post
    Glad to see you understand what we're dealing with.

    I must admit, the constant dodging of questions, the continual posting of studies that have minimal bearing on the issue (not to mention that they often cost $$ to read), plus the continuous dismissal of anything that contradicts the "accepted" studies does tend to get aggravating at times.

    There's a saying that I believe to be Reiver's M.O. - "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...".

    Blind them with BullSheite"
    When we can see a better future for our nations children we can focus on the non issue; issues.

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Don't come out short here! Can you refer to a study in support of your argument? It would be great to see you improving on the standards set by the previous fellows in this thread
    Sir, as I am sure you are painfully aware, most "studies" are highly flawed, and easily skewed to the direction of the person, or persons, doing the "studies". But based on my personal, first hand experience, my assertions will prove correct. I merely await the results of this study, in lieu of prior flawed, speculative, analysis, which you seem to rely on.
    "Some people, you just can't reach, which is the way they want it"

  8. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greatgeezer View Post
    Sir, as I am sure you are painfully aware, most "studies" are highly flawed, and easily skewed to the direction of the person, or persons, doing the "studies".
    This is actually nonsense. Most studies use datasets available to all. Its therefore very easy to test the validity of a paper's methodology. If a paper is biased you should be able to refer to a counter-paper that details that bias. Why can't you?

    But based on my personal, first hand experience, my assertions will prove correct.
    Tabloidism isn't of much use. Those that argue the Queen is a Lizard Person also utilise it. Stick to the evidence! Reference something that supports your stance

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Yup, you're correct. Absolutely correct. 110%, never been wrong, "don't have an eraser on the end of my pencil cause I never make mistakes" correct.

    That's why you have your reputation turned to "Off" - you're so correct you don't care what people think.

    Right?
    SpotsCat is a ® trademark of SpotsCat Intergalactic Enterprises LLC, All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use of the exceptionally witty material contained herein shall be prostituted to the fullest extent. Trespassers will be shot. No glass bottles in the pool area. Brush your teeth and wear clean underwear.


  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpotsCat View Post
    Yup, you're correct. Absolutely correct.
    Given my objectivity and ability to refer to the evidence, I'm simply able to defend my argument. You haven't been able to.

Closed Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 21 of 60 FirstFirst ... 1117181920212223242531 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2013 is going to be much worse than 2012 for America - Jim Rogers
    By DA60 in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 202
    Last Post: Feb 04 2012, 06:01 PM
  2. 12 Reasons Why America Needs Michele Bachmann To Run For President In 2012
    By Ostap Bender in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: Dec 21 2011, 04:40 AM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: Oct 30 2011, 09:40 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks