Thread: Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

Originally Posted by Reiver

British 'official crime data' could not be used for time series analysis because it was limited by definition inconsistencies. For example, Police Authorities would differ in how they treated bogus emergency calls. It gets even worse when we consider 'hidden crime', where we find that the probability of being a victim of crime and probability of reporting that crime aren't consistently relate to the business cycle


You won't be able to find one empirical source that shows trends in our homicide rate is related to the handgun ban.

You must remember this,folks......Reiver is NEVER wrong, and only Reivers data is the correct one,all other sources are 'spurious'

Originally Posted by LoneStrSt8

You must remember this,folks......Reiver is NEVER wrong, and only Reivers data is the correct one,all other sources are 'spurious'

My data? Not a cunning comment! I refer directly to the primary research, ensuring thereby that appropriate empirical methodologies are adopted. I don't hide, nor do I ask for the NRA to tell me what to think. Individualism in action!

Originally Posted by Reiver

My data? Not a cunning comment! I refer directly to the primary research, ensuring thereby that appropriate empirical methodologies are adopted. I don't hide, nor do I ask for the NRA to tell me what to think. Individualism in action!

Yes. All research is valid; thus, the research that is counter to your chosen research is also valid.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Yes. All research is valid; thus, the research that is counter to your chosen research is also valid.

The objective study of the evidence involves an ability to critique. For example, its very easy to discount publications by Lott. Not of course by 'foot stamping' that he's wrong and I know better (I leave those tactics to the NRA zombies). No, by showing that his results are reliant on flawed empirical methodology

Originally Posted by Reiver

My data? Not a cunning comment! I refer directly to the primary research, ensuring thereby that appropriate empirical methodologies are adopted. I don't hide, nor do I ask for the NRA to tell me what to think. Individualism in action!

No, you just let Anti gun propaganda color your posts saying things like 'the NRA tells us what to think......'

I've held my views on the right to bear arms long before I finally joined the NRA

Originally Posted by LoneStrSt8

No, you just let Anti gun propaganda color your posts saying things like 'the NRA tells us what to think......'

My stance is based purely on objective literature review methods. My comment reflects the lack of individualism I see amongst the NRA types. Their reliance on being told what to think really isn't healthy!

Originally Posted by Reiver

My stance is based purely on objective literature review methods. My comment reflects the lack of individualism I see amongst the NRA types. Their reliance on being told what to think really isn't healthy!

you just can't help showing your bias and your ignorance,can you?

Originally Posted by LoneStrSt8

you just can't help showing your bias and your ignorance,can you?

Adopting objective literature review methods, leading to a change in personal circumstances, isn't consistent with bias or ignorance. Being told what to think by shallow secondary sources that are designed only to manipulate the gullible? Well then...

Originally Posted by Reiver

Adopting objective literature review methods, leading to a change in personal circumstances, isn't consistent with bias or ignorance. Being told what to think by shallow secondary sources that are designed only to manipulate the gullible? Well then...

Point was, if you hadn't been blinded by your bias,ignorance and prejudice, was that NO ONE 'tells' me what to think or say..

Originally Posted by LoneStrSt8

Point was, if you hadn't been blinded by your bias,ignorance and prejudice, was that NO ONE 'tells' me what to think or say..

But that's what they tell you to say.