Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

All the data and the written summaries of the data supports my view. Nothing you have posted on this forum in the form of a quote or a link supports a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing you have said.

Reiver = FAIL

 

This is a ridiculous claim. You can't even refer to one empirical study that supports your position. The best you've achieved is a poor secondary source that referred to out-of-date information.

 

Reiver and Archer. I want to thank you both for a jolly good read.

The argument both involved with has been entertaining, it has not gone anywhere but your passion to insult and degrade each other posts, is classic forum chat.

 

Take it up with the AU/UK government.

 

Read this again and go back so you can catch it all.

 

In the case of the British government there is no pressure to reverse the handgun ban. It was a popular measure after all. And, as you well know, you cannot refer to any evidence that there has been crime increases because of it.

In the case of the Australian government, we've already referred to an empirical study that shows the gun control policy was successful.

Again, you've got nothing!

 

Thanks; but he FAILS because he never presents anything. He refers to this or that and pulls conclusions out of his ass. If he would present hard numbers that backed him it would not be this way; it would be a debate. There is no real debate here; we just like to screw with him and watch his credibility be destroyed while we ruffle his feathers.

 

I have it all and I have a big dick to comfort me if I fail. You have been punked and you never had anything you did not pull out of your ass.

 

Another spurious relationship - we can't prove his feathers are ruffled because we screw with him, there could be outside, unseen variables at play!

We need a study...

 

The problem is that you're not just innocent of the evidence. You're also innocent of your innocence. I'm trying to do you a favour here, but you're going to have to put some work into it. You're actually going to have to read something more than just low brow secondary source designed to manipulate the gullible

 

Alas Reiver I tire of you. Your frantic wiggling after you emptied your ass of the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you post has become boring. You can not even muster a good fart on this subject so I will just talk about you like you are not here; because...well...wait for it.....wait for it.......... YOU FAIL as usual.

Here lies a man (Reiver) whose arrogance greatly outweighed his intelligence. 10/0

 

The problem is that you have no means to respond, ensuring your reliance on bluster. Again, this reflects a simple fact: evidence is beyond you, ensuring the crass errors and the 'foot in it' moments

 

Yes and intelligence is beyond you.

 

Technically I'm not just able to refer to primary research, I can also undertake it. However, its much easier to just employ folk to do that. There's only so much fun you can get with Stata

 

Please either buy a new keyboard, or else go back and learn the rules of punctuation - you seem to be missing your last period (no pun intended).

Thanks!

 

Then why bother? I have no doubt that any information you have uses a similar data set but draws different conclusions factoring in variables that may or may not be relevant to the discussion. How can you debate if you must depend on your opponent to find your data?

I have heard intelligence come forth from your fingers but until you can present data to back yourself up how can you even hope to have any type of discussion where you can credibly counter anything? It really is one sided and until you put the information on the table it is your word against the facts (data) of your opponent.

 

You're not making sense (again). I always adopt best practice. I don't have a tantrum because of a petty subjectivity. All that matters is the evidence. I appreciate the techniques as, if I wanted to (though we have to factor in the opportunity costs), I could apply themselves myself. It wouldn't be difficult, for example, to undertake an analysis into crime trends based on distinguishing between gun ownership rates. We could simply use the techniques fine-tuned in convergence analysis into crime. No need though. One can refer to the abundant literature already published and just check that the techniques used are robust

 

And yet you discount everything and present nothing. I am perfectly of doing a statistical analyses and I have actually done one of the entire history of the DOW.

I can work advances trigonometric equations for finance and blah blah. When I am presented a data set that has been graphed there is no need. I do not need to know that 25% of the data does not count in your study because it does not meet some outlandish criteria so that the results will shew in your favor or mine. The numbers speak for themselves and the conclusions by government agencies make the same conclusions I make.

So I do not care how smart you think you are or what you have done or can do the fact is you do not do it and that being said you will fail every time.

Above is not a tantrum or a rant it is how it is.

So bugger off mate.

 

I discount crass error. It wouldn't be rational to do otherwise. And I continue with best practice, adopting sound literature review methods and always ensuring appropriate robust sources are used. Once you've actually read a few things on this topic you'll realise I'm 100% correct. Reading? Its a jolly business so it is

 

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Oh, and all crime is up after the ban.


http://davekopel.org/2a/Foreign/The-Gold-Standard-of-Gun-Control.htm

Also, there is nothing like being prosecuted for self defense. Something that is really nutty about the British.

 

Why would anyone in their right mind do this when the CDC already does it and would do a better job.

 

An example of a spurious relationship. Violent crime is now down, should I suggest its the result of the handgun ban? Of course not! To test the impact of the ban (and we wouldn't expect any effect really because handguns just weren't common enough) we'd need to show a structural break in the data. That is a very simple empirical exercise.

 

One problem. Your robust sources can not do math. I suspect you can not do too, but just parrot gun control advocates.

 

Did you ever bother to read what the founders of the Consitution had to say on the subject???

 

Yes, something about the new worlders fighting off british invasion. Which was the original intent of bearing arms to begin with.

Although why this is still ingrained in a constution 200 years later, i have no idea.