Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

**Reiver** · Feb 23 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Archer0915

Nice side step.

Simple knowledge which you should already know. Your blag isn't of a particularly high quality.

Your empirical study was based off of mathematical models that used humans as variables. You dented it so that evidently means I know more about your study than you do.

Nonsense again. The empirical study uses numerous variables to investigate whether a gun hypothesis can be rejected. Don't like the results? Well boo hoo!

**Archer0915** · Feb 23 2012, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Reiver

Simple knowledge which you should already know. Your blag isn't of a particularly high quality.

Nonsense again. The empirical study uses numerous variables to investigate whether a gun hypothesis can be rejected. Don't like the results? Well boo hoo!

So you are calling yourself a liar?

This only shows that you don't know what you're talking about. There has been no reference to mathematical models, except in your unimaginative dodge from your inability to defend your position with valid evidence. There has only been reference to the need to use empirical methodologies capable of isolating gun effects. That isn't economics specific.

Well on that we agree; You are full of 5hìt.

Also something about this just does not seem right:

Simple knowledge which you should already know.

**Reiver** · Feb 23 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Archer0915

So you are calling yourself a liar?

No, I'm saying you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You've confused yourself between mathematical models (typically used in theoretical analysis where data is not available) and statistics.

Also something about this just does not seem right:

Correct! It isn't right. Simple knowledge that you really should have grasped

**Archer0915** · Feb 23 2012, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by Reiver

No, I'm saying you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You've confused yourself between mathematical models (typically used in theoretical analysis where data is not available) and statistics.

Correct! It isn't right. Simple knowledge that you really should have grasped

No I have no and why so huffy puffy? You are having a tantrum like a little girl. Can you not face the fact that you are wrong?

Here is

on your face. No matter what you say or do from this point on you can not make a come back. Well you can. Work with people instead of showing your ass.

**Reiver** · Feb 23 2012, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Archer0915

No I have no

Still no content. You've made an error, just accept it. Given you don't understand the methodologies employed, you've gone off on one. I can understand that; you haven't any experience in using the evidence. Fair enough! However, learn from your error and please don't go back to that desperately naive raw data abuse

**Hoosier8** · Feb 23 2012, 11:15 AM

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ol-lobby/?whee

**Reiver** · Feb 23 2012, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby

Any chance you can refer directly to a piece of primary research? I'd see that as a personal success!

**Hoosier8** · Feb 23 2012, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Reiver

Any chance you can refer directly to a piece of primary research? I'd see that as a personal success!

You answered so quickly it is obvious you didn't even read the article. That supports what everyone is saying about you. One study, the one you cling to, does not make a good argument against all the other studies done, some of which I have posted and you have obviously ignored. It is just a study that supports your bias which is the reason you are ignoring everything else posted. You are just another pseudo intellectual.