Thread: Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

Originally Posted by Reiver

Technically I'm not just able to refer to primary research, I can also undertake it. However, its much easier to just employ folk to do that. There's only so much fun you can get with Stata

Then why bother? I have no doubt that any information you have uses a similar data set but draws different conclusions factoring in variables that may or may not be relevant to the discussion. How can you debate if you must depend on your opponent to find your data?

I have heard intelligence come forth from your fingers but until you can present data to back yourself up how can you even hope to have any type of discussion where you can credibly counter anything? It really is one sided and until you put the information on the table it is your word against the facts (data) of your opponent.

Originally Posted by Archer0915

Then why bother?

You're not making sense (again). I always adopt best practice. I don't have a tantrum because of a petty subjectivity. All that matters is the evidence. I appreciate the techniques as, if I wanted to (though we have to factor in the opportunity costs), I could apply themselves myself. It wouldn't be difficult, for example, to undertake an analysis into crime trends based on distinguishing between gun ownership rates. We could simply use the techniques fine-tuned in convergence analysis into crime. No need though. One can refer to the abundant literature already published and just check that the techniques used are robust

Originally Posted by Reiver

You're not making sense (again). I always adopt best practice. I don't have a tantrum because of a petty subjectivity. All that matters is the evidence. I appreciate the techniques as, if I wanted to (though we have to factor in the opportunity costs), I could apply themselves myself. It wouldn't be difficult, for example, to undertake an analysis into crime trends based on distinguishing between gun ownership rates. We could simply use the techniques fine-tuned in convergence analysis into crime. No need though. One can refer to the abundant literature already published and just check that the techniques used are robust

And yet you discount everything and present nothing. I am perfectly of doing a statistical analyses and I have actually done one of the entire history of the DOW.

I can work advances trigonometric equations for finance and blah blah. When I am presented a data set that has been graphed there is no need. I do not need to know that 25% of the data does not count in your study because it does not meet some outlandish criteria so that the results will shew in your favor or mine. The numbers speak for themselves and the conclusions by government agencies make the same conclusions I make.

So I do not care how smart you think you are or what you have done or can do the fact is you do not do it and that being said you will fail every time.

Above is not a tantrum or a rant it is how it is.

So bugger off mate.

Originally Posted by Archer0915

And yet you discount everything and present nothing.

I discount crass error. It wouldn't be rational to do otherwise. And I continue with best practice, adopting sound literature review methods and always ensuring appropriate robust sources are used. Once you've actually read a few things on this topic you'll realise I'm 100% correct. Reading? Its a jolly business so it is

Originally Posted by Reiver

In the case of the British government there is no pressure to reverse the handgun ban. It was a popular measure after all. And, as you well know, you cannot refer to any evidence that there has been crime increases because of it.

In the case of the Australian government, we've already referred to an empirical study that shows the gun control policy was successful.

Again, you've got nothing!

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Oh, and all crime is up after the ban.


http://davekopel.org/2a/Foreign/The-...un-Control.htm

Also, there is nothing like being prosecuted for self defense. Something that is really nutty about the British.

Originally Posted by Makedde

I'm compiling a list of all the people killed by firearms in the US this year,
2012. I want to see how many people (innocent or otherwise) die by guns in one single year in America. Its to further strengthen my argument that guns should be illegal, or at least heaviliy restricted.

If anyone has anymore to add, please post them.

I'll start with this one:



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1004361

Such a petty dispute and now four people are dead. A terminally ill woman has lost her husband and carer. How confused she must feel. I do wonder if there hadn't been earlier arguments about this. It sounds rather ridiculous that someone would kill three people, then himself just because he wanted his wife to have a piece of fruit.
At the same time, if he was her full time carer, he should decide what meals she has - no one else.

Initial reports that said that Mrs. Gilkey was shot were wrong, and the report was modified.

Why would anyone in their right mind do this when the CDC already does it and would do a better job.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

An example of a spurious relationship. Violent crime is now down, should I suggest its the result of the handgun ban? Of course not! To test the impact of the ban (and we wouldn't expect any effect really because handguns just weren't common enough) we'd need to show a structural break in the data. That is a very simple empirical exercise.

Originally Posted by Reiver

I discount crass error. It wouldn't be rational to do otherwise. And I continue with best practice, adopting sound literature review methods and always ensuring appropriate robust sources are used. Once you've actually read a few things on this topic you'll realise I'm 100% correct. Reading? Its a jolly business so it is

One problem. Your robust sources can not do math. I suspect you can not do too, but just parrot gun control advocates.

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

Isnt the idea of a armed populace against the goverment fantasy when view the news.

In any country that is tried in, the goverment eventually uses the military to crush the rebellion. While the rest of the world watches and cries out "human rights abuses"

One of the moset recent attempts in egypt, the protesters outside the egyptian military headquaters. And what happens? The goverment sends in the military to fire live rounds killing scores of people.

I am not sure how many were armed, but the loss of life might have been greater if they were armed, vs professional soliders.

Did you ever bother to read what the founders of the Consitution had to say on the subject???

Originally Posted by beenthere

Did you ever bother to read what the founders of the Consitution had to say on the subject???

Yes, something about the new worlders fighting off british invasion. Which was the original intent of bearing arms to begin with.

Although why this is still ingrained in a constution 200 years later, i have no idea.