Why are you folk so insistent on refusing basic sense? Raw data cannot be used as there are multiple variables impacting on crime rates. A multiple regression methodology is required to ensure that you control for these other factors, ensuring that you avoid basic problems such as omitted variable bias.Originally Posted by Europe Rick
Sr. Correspondent
Give it up already, your methods here are swiss cheese, stankin and full of holes.
Seht ihr mich? Versteht ihr mich? Fühlt ihr mich? Hört ihr mich?
Do you see me? Do you understand me? Do you feel me? Do you hear me?
Sr. Correspondent
Raw data can be used' it shows that if you take the gun away from the criminal, he will still commit the crimes. You keep saying more guns=more murder, than the raw data would show a decrease in murder when bans are in place.
Seht ihr mich? Versteht ihr mich? Fühlt ihr mich? Hört ihr mich?
Do you see me? Do you understand me? Do you feel me? Do you hear me?
Without an empirical specification, it can only be used to illustrate spurious conclusion. There is no debate in this.
Wrong! The 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. We also see statistically significant reductions in crime from gun control. Again, you're just clueless about the evidence and you're making vacuous claim because you have nothing else to offer.it shows that if you take the gun away from the criminal, he will still commit the crimes..
Sr. Correspondent
Did you smoke your breakfast? The statistics in countries that ban guns or have heavy gun control are relativly uneffected or slightly worse, nothing you have brought to this debate has change that, including your magical studies. You can pick and choose what you want to quote from peoples post, but you are missing the entire picture, taking away guns does not stop crime.
Seht ihr mich? Versteht ihr mich? Fühlt ihr mich? Hört ihr mich?
Do you see me? Do you understand me? Do you feel me? Do you hear me?
Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person who wants to make the new law? In other words, shouldn't the side that wants to ban a given gun type have to prove that doing so would actually make things better somehow - less crime, fewer murders, fewer deaths, etc.?
Regardless, how about a little actual experimental evidence. What if a community with a high or rising crime rate suddenly and significantly increased firearm ownership in the county? Would you accept the impact it had on crime rates as good evidence of the impact gun ownership has on crime?
TANSTAAFL
You'd need more than that to conduct a natural experiment (e.g. you'd need two areas which you know have seem identical changes in other crime-impacting variables). You could go for a structural break analysis, but that is likely to be rather difficult (e.g. reported crime rates are found to be related to the business cycle, creating noise in the data)
Correspondent
I cannot pull up any hard statistics right now, but if you remove the gang on gang related violence, gun murders for everyone else drops significantly. I find it hard to believe that the non-gang criminals in Chicago are any different, morally, than the same type of non-gang criminals in LA, Seattle, Dallas, or New York. So, my big question is what percentage of murders are gang related or criminal on criminal? The loss of life is depressing at times, but the root cause of many of the murders in the country can't be nailed down to one area or even a set of laws. It is a complicated problem and treating one tool or symptom of the problem will still leave the root cause of the disease.
Another interesting fact: more soldiers are committing suicide than dying in combat (as of 2010). Does this mean one specific thing can be nailed down to an object? A person bent on committing suicide will commit suicide. A safety net, social structure, and family all can help reduce suicides by firearm more than removing the firearm itself. Getting to the root cause, PTSD in some to most cases, and treating that, is more effective than removing a tool.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-s...ied-in-combat/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...ticle-1.391264
http://www.mediafreedominternational...ied-in-combat/
Having very small sample sizes for percentages can have the percentages changed very quickly, and apparently by large amounts, with a very small number of change. Rates per 100,000 are a better indicator of the health of a population statistic than percentages.
The United States has different laws than the UK or Australia and cannot be directly compared because of different cultures. For example, in the UK, you can be compelled to testify against yourself and be forced to implicate yourself (5A protection in the US). The Uk legal system, for better or worse, has different rules and outsiders cannot get a good grasp of how it works unless you live there for an amount of time. The same is true for gun rights. Outsiders from other countries cannot understand the culture surrounding firearms and other methods of self-defense because their culture is permeating their thinking and mindset, just like American thinking and mindset clouds our view of the rest of the world. I believe it is why a significant portion of the world views Americans as spoiled. I think that Americans are spoiled as well, but that still doesn't mean that I want to give it up. Our ancestors, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, husbands and wives have fought long and hard and produced enough to get to where we are today, and I will fight to protect it. This includes the entire Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment.
You served in the Marine Corps Logi, and I respect and honor you for it and I choose to extend the courtesy because of that position that you have. I do not extend the same to outsiders from different cultures decrying the use and prevalence of firearms in our country. Cultures are not direct comparisons; they are many people. One cannot understand another culture for having something or not having something unless you are fully immersed in the culture.
Correspondent
Fine, then please offer the premise that reflects that. The simple premise that MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES defines the parameters and is definitive in and of itself.
If I said, IT ALWAYS RAINS ON FRIDAYS, that doesn't really permit multiple regression methodology and various controls ensuring that we avoid basic problems such as omitted variable bias. If it is Friday and it ain't raining the premise is defeated!
The proof for IT ALWAYS RAINS ON FRIDAYS shouldn't be - There exists a .900432 confidence coefficient that measurable moisture will occur on Fridays that include a 1 in their date falling on a full moon in the lunar cycle (excepting eclipses) falling in a month that occurs during the southern hemisphere's summer solstice in which American Idol is in reruns . . .
You have presented a premise with only one variable, MORE GUNS . . .
The theorized outcome from adding MORE GUNS is MORE GUN HOMICIDES.
The realized outcome of FEWER HOMICIDES defeats the premise.
In 1990, 16,218 people out of a population of 249,464,396 were murdered with a gun.
In 2010, 8,775 people out of a population of 308,745,538 were murdered with a gun.
20 years + 60,000,000 people + at least 80,000,000 guns = 7743 FEWER ANNUAL HOMICIDES?
Please feel free to construct a multi-pronged premise (hopefully less comedic than the rainy Friday one above) that your variable laden proofs support because MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES ain't it.
Failing that, please compose a statement of your proof in the same plain English and in the simple terms of the premise because I have never heard you actually state it. All I've ever heard from you is that the premise can't be defeated . . . .
.
Last edited by Europe Rick; Feb 08 2013 at 07:34 AM.
You're asking for repetition. The 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis can only be tested by controlling for the other crime-impacting variables. You folk are simply very ignorant about the empirical process and how hypothesis testing is conducted
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks