Thread: Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

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).

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.

Originally Posted by greatgeezer

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

Originally Posted by Reiver

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".

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

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

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

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"

Originally Posted by Reiver

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.

Originally Posted by greatgeezer

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

Originally Posted by Reiver

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?

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

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.