Closed Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 55 of 60 FirstFirst ... 45515253545556575859 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 596

Thread: Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

  1. #541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer0915 View Post
    Glad you like it because his conclusion is counter to yout guns = crime.
    Read closer. It confirms what I've said: the crime effect is skewed towards homicide. Crikey, you sure you're not a gun control lobbyist?

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Read closer. It confirms what I've said: the crime effect is skewed towards homicide. Crikey, you sure you're not a gun control lobbyist?
    No you said more guns = more crime and I countered stating more guns = more homicide. I could also say more guns = less crime but I have no study stating that and numbers that the rest of us understand must come with a peer review for you.
    When we can see a better future for our nations children we can focus on the non issue; issues.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Irrelevant except to the feasibility of a gun ban. This is about logic, evidence and rationality. You shouldn't find the three so unpalatable!
    Irrelevant??? Let's see, we take an area that isn't suppose to have any firearms and compare it to a place where the populace is armed. As I said, that's like comparing Yemen's auto accidents per capita to the U.S.'s auto accidents to prove what terrible drivers Americans are. You can't do it and come up with any kind of reasonable statistics or data.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beenthere View Post
    Irrelevant??? Let's see, we take an area that isn't suppose to have any firearms and compare it to a place where the populace is armed. As I said, that's like comparing Yemen's auto accidents per capita to the U.S.'s auto accidents to prove what terrible drivers Americans are. You can't do it and come up with any kind of reasonable statistics or data.
    Why so much complaining? This is the best topic on this forum.

    Anti gun vs Pro gun. Academic datasets, numoures links, and debate on going in 50+ pages.

    But have any conclusions been reached in such heated exchanges.
    When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think the sardines will be thrown into the sea.

  6. #545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Isn't this just repetition? You have to show that there has been some form of substitution effect between guns and knives. If you cant your argument is simple "unless guns predict 100% of homocides we can ignore the importance of gun control". As I'm sure you'd agree, that argument would be idiotic
    Then how do you explain the increase in homicides by knives?

    True or False -- You've repeatedly stated that "more guns = more crime", ergo "less guns = less crime".

    True or False -- Australia has implemented some of the world's most restrictive firearm laws.

    True or False -- The Australian Institute of Criminology documents that knife crime has increased and overall homicide rate remains the same.

    You can obfuscate all you want, and deny, deny, deny until they close this thread, but the data from the Australian Institute of Criminology illustrates that "more guns = more crime" is an invalid hypothesis.
    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.


  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeneralZod View Post
    Why so much complaining? This is the best topic on this forum.

    Anti gun vs Pro gun. Academic datasets, numoures links, and debate on going in 50+ pages.

    But have any conclusions been reached in such heated exchanges.
    There will be no conclusion reached on this subject. It is not that the data is the issue it is that emotions on both sides are working and the fact that humans are the issue.

    I can accept Reivers studies but not the conclusions because too many variables are left out. So does a drug dealer getting killed in a gun fight and his killer being locked up have a positive or negative impact?

    I say it is good because it saves money long term.
    When we can see a better future for our nations children we can focus on the non issue; issues.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeneralZod View Post
    Why so much complaining? This is the best topic on this forum.

    Anti gun vs Pro gun. Academic datasets, numoures links, and debate on going in 50+ pages.

    But have any conclusions been reached in such heated exchanges.
    In my opinion, Reiv is comparing apples to peanuts. You can not look at countries who's population are unarmed and most of it's citizens wouldn't know what to do with a firearm if it was handed to him/her and compare them with a nation that has over 300 million firearms in the citizens hands and say, look, the U.S. has a much higher gun crime rate than all these other countries. It's stupid on the face of it.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Irrelevant except to the feasibility of a gun ban. This is about logic, evidence and rationality. You shouldn't find the three so unpalatable!
    Rubbish, just more intellectual drivel.

  10. #549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beenthere View Post
    In my opinion, Reiv is comparing apples to peanuts. You can not look at countries who's population are unarmed and most of it's citizens wouldn't know what to do with a firearm if it was handed to him/her and compare them with a nation that has over 300 million firearms in the citizens hands and say, look, the U.S. has a much higher gun crime rate than all these other countries. It's stupid on the face of it.
    S/he posts continually the "more guns = more crime" hypothesis, which on the face of it seems to make sense. But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the data from the Australian Institute of Criminology doesn't back that theory up.

    If the theory that "more guns = more crime" is true, then the opposite is also true - "less guns = less crime". However, the Australians report that since they've instituted their strict controls on private possession of firearms, that the overall murder rate has remained constant, and the number of homicides committed using knives has increased.

    It would make sense that if firearms are made less accessible to the citizens of any given city/state/country, that the crime rate should drop, just as it would make sense that if firearms are introduced into a city/state/country that the rate of crime should increase. The real world experience we've seen reported by the Australians contradicts what the studies theorize should be the result of a policy of firearm restriction.

    Reiver claims that we can't draw any conclusions from the Australian Criminology report - that because there are too many external variables, because all things aren't equal, because we don't have a peer-reviewed research paper that factors in these variables, we can't come to the conclusion that "less guns = less crime", nor can we come to the conclusion that the Australians - in the absence of firearms - have found different ways of killing each other.

    Yet, when asked to explain this report from the Australians, when asked to account as to why the "more guns = more crime" theory doesn't seem to apply in this instance, Reiver has continually stonewalled, diverted the topic in different directions, obfuscated, and repeatedly refused to address why this may be the case.

    In short, his/her position is "My theory is right, and you can't prove it wrong, because you don't have any research papers!" Sadly, this is seen far too often in real-world situations.

    Remember about twelve years ago when the scientists released data that supposedly proved a link between the mercury-based preservative in children's vaccines and autism? That was finally proven to be flawed research, and no link was ever shown to exist between the two. Yet the "true believers" prevented their children from obtaining vaccinations, and consequently outbreaks of measles, mumps, and rubella were reported. *Here* Scientific theory disproven by real-world application.

    It's sad, but that's the way it goes...
    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.


  11. #550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beenthere View Post
    just more intellectual drivel.
    This made me laugh. Well done!

Closed Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 55 of 60 FirstFirst ... 45515253545556575859 ... 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