+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 72

Thread: Gun ownership numbers in the United States, or lack thereof

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsdrifter View Post
    My only contention has been that a "supported hypothesis" or "can not be rejected". Is not the same as "proof" by my understanding.

    I appreciate the vote of confidence. Yet it is not a sacrifice to me. I have never
    used that in a conversation. I will use the same standards on all studies. The critical review I posted was I believe presented to congress in 2005. The only conclusion reached on defensive gun use was "used many times a day". I will not be dishonest to win a debate. I do not feel as if I have to win. A draw will serve my purposes just as well.


    As you become more familiar with the research you'll come to understand that Kleck's work is held in high regard by the anti-control crowd and the results are often used in discussions concerning gun control. In fact his work is regarded above most, if not all other pro-gun works. To deny the science of Cook, and others based on some silly gun ownership charge only denies you the ability to use valid research for your own cause.
    Guns don't kill people, Bullets kill people.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danct View Post
    What kind of double talk is this?

    I asked you a simple question and you talked all the way around it. Take a stand, friend. If you agree with your friend 'Hoosier' as to the importance of gun ownership data, then you must also discount Kleck's work.

    Be honest. Are you discounting Kleck's work?
    I can agree with what is found in a study but the fact is no study fully does the job. I accept what studies reveal but I try to stick with the numbers. If a study agrees with raw data and shows causation and defines all potential contributory factors while not making assumptions about relevant variables that are not available in any real form I do consider them but I do not attempt to misapply them as is done so often.
    When we can see a better future for our nations children we can focus on the non issue; issues.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Danct
    Ah,,,,,, You have a "tell". You have inadvertently shown us the cause of your bias on this issue. It apparently stems from a misplaced fear of "totalitarianism". Even though we were only speaking of scientific review, you felt compelled to bring a fear of legislative action into this discussion that did not belong here.

    It's always interesting to see what fuels a blind refusal to accept science.

    Science based on incomplete data or bad data is just bad science, no matter how much you want to enshrine the word as if it is some kind of talisman to protect you from your own preconceived notions.


    Sorry but I wasn't the one who brought fearful qualms about "totalitarianism" and gun legislation when we were only talking about scientific research. Talk about "preconceived notions"! Kettle black?
    Guns don't kill people, Bullets kill people.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsdrifter View Post
    I did not mean to offend. I feel as if firearms have as much protection as other constitutionally protected rights. They can be limited but not in the same way as non-protected issues. Would that be a error on my part?


    It is impossible to pass a law that is already proven to be effective. It's a chicken and egg dilemma. How do you know it to be effective until it is passed?

    This standard you espouse is unrealistic and not used in any other laws that I am aware of.
    Guns don't kill people, Bullets kill people.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer0915 View Post
    I can agree with what is found in a study but the fact is no study fully does the job. I accept what studies reveal but I try to stick with the numbers. If a study agrees with raw data and shows causation and defines all potential contributory factors while not making assumptions about relevant variables that are not available in any real form I do consider them but I do not attempt to misapply them as is done so often.





    So, in other words you dismiss Kleck's work. You really could have saved yourself some typing with the double talk.
    Guns don't kill people, Bullets kill people.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danct View Post
    Sorry but I wasn't the one who brought fearful qualms about "totalitarianism" and gun legislation when we were only talking about scientific research. Talk about "preconceived notions"! Kettle black?

    One is science, one is philosophy and government.

    You appear to assume that science is unassailable. Science itself is a process but that does not mean anything that comes of it is accurate or correct and that is what we have been talking about for a couple of threads relating to guns and crime, something in the political realm since the studies are pursued for the benefit of affecting law, so no, we are not just talking about scientific research, we are talking about what the results of bogus science studies can affect.
    "Education: The inculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent." ~ John Maynard Keynes

    He should know because he is the economist who convinced politicians that you get out of debt by going further in to debt.

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danct View Post
    It is impossible to pass a law that is already proven to be effective. It's a chicken and egg dilemma. How do you know it to be effective until it is passed?I believe my original point on that was the existing gun laws have not been able to be proven effective. Now while raw data suggest they have helped. The studies of Cook as well as others have shown no positive effect.

    This standard you espouse is unrealistic and not used in any other laws that I am aware of.
    Why would restricting the second amendment be any different than any of the other amendments? My understanding was a need had to be proven and the restiction had to meet that need. I am no expert by any means I am just going off my impression of what I have read.

  8. #48

    Default

    Danct,
    I believe a more direct way of asking previous question. Would a fundamental right have more protection than a right not considered fundamental? If so what would you consider sufficient evidence?

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danct View Post
    So, in other words you dismiss Kleck's work. You really could have saved yourself some typing with the double talk.
    I think your confused Danct.

    I can agree with what is found in a study but the fact is no study fully does the job. I accept what studies reveal but I try to stick with the numbers. If a study agrees with raw data and shows causation and defines all potential contributory factors while not making assumptions about relevant variables that are not available in any real form I do consider them but I do not attempt to misapply them as is done so often.
    What I am saying is almost all studies, because of their nature, can be discounted. I go with the raw data only because, though you discount it, there are no distortions or assumptions. All an opponent can do is say I am making spurious relationships. In fact I am looking at the data many times and wondering what is wrong with the math in those studies because they do not match the facts.
    When we can see a better future for our nations children we can focus on the non issue; issues.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danct View Post
    As you become more familiar with the research you'll come to understand that Kleck's work is held in high regard by the anti-control crowd and the results are often used in discussions concerning gun control. In fact his work is regarded above most, if not all other pro-gun works. To deny the science of Cook, and others based on some silly gun ownership charge only denies you the ability to use valid research for your own cause.
    I am far from proficient in the studies of discussion. I understand the summarys or conclusions of the ones I have read. Yet the math that is used in some of the studies I have read is beyond my comprehension. That is one reason why I have been concentrating on critical reviews. The one I posted was by 15 experts in their respective fields. My research has indicated 14 of the 15 favor gun control. D. Hemenway, Director of the Harvard School of Public Health, reviewed the review. He had only one major issue of
    disagreement as well as wishing a injury prevention professional had been included. The critical review itself reviewed a significant amount of the studies in question including Cook as well as Kleck. I do not dismiss the studies. My education is not sufficient for me to make that determination. To make up for that I check every possible aspect, I can imagine to see how people with higher intellects view the studies as well as the field of econometrics. Any reservations I express are related to professional opinions, not necessarily mine. The opinions of others on this forum I use for additional research as it presents a different point of view. I must prove facts to myself I can not blindly follow others. That is my purpose for engaging in debate it pushes me outside my comfort zone and forces me to research to find answers.

    May I ask if you have read this critical review? If so, what was your opinion?
    http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?rec...81#description

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The United States of 1%
    By Phoebe Bump in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: Mar 07 2012, 11:40 AM
  2. Replies: 55
    Last Post: Sep 23 2011, 09:11 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks