Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

No! I did ask the necessary questions throughout this thread and they were ignored.

The first issue is isolating the guns and the crimes. I asked questions and never got answers and therefore never expanded.

Read through the thread before you discount anything.

The fact is it can not be proved that "more guns = more crime"

No as to the idiot comment. Do you understand any of the studies? I do and I have found fault with them as applied to the OP. This misapplication of information clearly shows desperation on the opposing side.

 

You can only guess at gun ownership so can never have anything close to an accurate number. There are no records. One study used the sales of "Guns & Ammo" as an indicator. Really? How many gangbangers read Guns & Ammo?
If you ever dare to read any of the honest studies, they start out by saying that this is the major problem to measuring anything to do with gun ownership. The "guesses" swing wildly from one end to the other or have to settle on an arbitrary average. That leaves plenty of room to make your study say what you wants.

BWT: I have been consistent in saying you can prove neither "more guns = more crime" or "more guns = less crime" because of this issue. If you are a true believer like Reiver and you are starting to sound like it, you also cannot accept this little fact.

 

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. There are many theories as to the intent of the Second Amendment, but to state that it was exclusively for protection from our government is simply not true. At the writing of the Amendment we had a militia that was intended to repel foreign invasions. I don't intend to get into a silly exchange as to this intent, but any absolutist assertion such as yours is not constructive.

Your view as to an "eroded" right is equally inane. Especially in light of two recent Supreme Court cases that have only strengthened this right.

 

I didn't ask you whether you asked "necessary questions" or not, friend. That's fairly irrelevant to my point in fact. You had previously claimed that Reiver's study "did not include necessary variables". If you are now implying that you do not know if they included these so-called "necessary variables" because a particular response wasn't given to you, then this is not a logical way to make a valid argument. His responses (or lack of them) do NOT negate the actual inclusion or exclusion of those supposed variables. Get it?

Once again, Reiver's responses do NOT negate the inclusion of that information.

I'm not discounting anything. You might have a valid argument, but you have thus far not made a very compelling case in my opinion. Thus far, all I have seen is an ideology-driven complaint about the study's results from you. You haven't made any valid critiques of the study or studies in question.

What I DO discount are knee-jerk responses driven solely by ideology and at the expense of valid scientific and peer reviewed studies. All too often here we see broad aspersions cast on scientific works with little to no regard for the science behind them.

The results CAN be tested and the results cannot be discounted if the author's peers have found no flaws. Did the author's peers find flaws in the study[ies]?

Unlike yourself, I don't claim to understand what I do not. I am simply trying to test the validity of your claims, and thus far I must say they are seriously lacking. You have made clams as to missing variables yet cannot identify those variables. You have also made claims as to relevancy and once again cannot specify what you feel is missing as to this. If you can clear this up, you could salvage some competency in this regard. Until then you should not be making bold claims as to "desperation". You might get caught up in some irony.

 

I am not going through this thread re-examining my posts ti find things. Reiver failed and if you try to take up where he left off you will fail. I do understand the studies and you are posting for flames I believe. You have presented nothing and have nothing.

 

Citation? Anything?

Thus far, all I've gotten from you is an inability to show how different calculations of gun ownership would affect the results. All I've seen are assumptions. This would seem to be important to your argument, no?

 

So are you saying that there were no assumptions in the studies Reiver presented? I guess you did not read them.

 

So far you have not proved that not having any information on gun ownership is not crucial in a study about gun ownership. Want to give proof?

 

That works wonders on both 2 legged critters as well as 4 legged.

 

In reality, Reiv, you refere to nothing that applies to this nation but here's a
30+ year study for you to refute;

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Have fun

 

Ayuh,.... Welcome to round 2 of the tag team match....

You've beaten down reliever with her Off topic Bullship,...

Now, Danny boy is gonna sing 'is song of Off topic Bullship, sayin' Nothin', 'n DEMANDING that you constantly repeat all the things already said by yerself....

I donno if danny boy 'n reliever are a Team, or just the same Troll...

Good Luck to ya Archer, either way...

 

It is obvious that danct has nothing to add other than pure stubborn arguing for the sake of arguing. Reiver part dos.

 

Both a straw man and a red herring fallacy. Congratulations. This is difficult to do in one sentence as you have.

Perhaps it would be more constructive to address what I DID say, eh?

 

Maybe you can do what you demand of others and prove there is some way to accurately measure gun ownership. Got that?

Want to show where it is in any of the reports Reiver referenced? After all, that is critical to proving anything about gun ownership.

Also, completely denying that any other view is wrong because you just believe it is not science or proof. Prove that gun ownership can be measured first and then you might have a chance at not looking so intransigent.

 

The "things" that you claim to know? This is an odd response.

I have seen this before here. Members such as yourself mistake quantity for quality. You mistakenly believe that agreement by members of like mind somehow equals critical thinking. Agreement by members like 'Bondo" here does NOT mean that your position is valid or not, friend. Critical thinking requires more than aped slogans and group-thought. It requires an ability to document or relate the sequence of factual elements that went into your conclusion. The VERY thing that you have not been able to do with me here. I am simply trying to nurture out some sort of rational argument from you, even if you are kicking and screaming along the way.

Then if you do indeed "understand the studies" you should be able to answer the simple questions I have asked of you. Thus far I have only seen bluster and chest-thumping with no factual evidence. You know, the very thing you claimed the studies lacked? Ironic, I'd say.

I have no interest in flames, friend. I would much prefer rational debate. Is this asking too much of you?

 

You're mistaking me for someone who claimed that these studies don't have "any information on gun ownership". This is simply a red herring to distract from your inability to back up your claims. I'm still waiting.

 

You're wrong on BOTH counts. 'O' for two. The studies DO apply to this country AND what you referred to as a "study" was not actually a study after all.

 

I find your statements fascinating. I have merely asked you to logically define your positions. I had no idea that this would be so difficult for you and worthy of such personal attacks.

Don't let me stop you two from your love-fest, although you COULD choose your friends more wisely.

 

I have no illusions as to your acceptance of dissension, friend. You have confused the pursuit of knowledge for intransigence. I have done nothing but ask for information from you which has been met by diversions and distractions. Nowhere that I can recall have I defined a position contrary to your own that does not include the absence of your evidence. I simply will not accept a position driven solely by ideology, which you and others here seem to be offering.

I welcome to be proven wrong on this.

If the data used in Reiver's studies is invalid as you claim it to be, then you should be able to state why it's invalid and by how much. Just CLAIMING it's not accurate isn't enough for me and it shouldn't be enough for you either.

 

In other words you have nothing? If you want you can go through this thread and gather any sources and we can go through everything again. Otherwise you are beating a horse we already killed.

 

I cannot prove a negative so; therefore, it is up to you to prove the data exists otherwise you are just trolling.

 

Forgive him Hoosier8; he knows not what he does and thinks. He only knows what he has been told to do and think.

 

Then I guess the answer to rational debate is "no".

I have seen this before here. Members such as yourself mistake quantity for quality. You mistakenly believe that agreement by members of like mind somehow equals critical thinking. Agreement by members like 'Bondo" here does NOT mean that your position is valid or not, friend. Critical thinking requires more than aped slogans and group-thought. It requires an ability to document or relate the sequence of factual elements that went into your conclusion. The VERY thing that you have not been able to do with me here. I am simply trying to nurture out some sort of rational argument from you, even if you are kicking and screaming along the way.

 

No. You claimed that the studies' data was not accurate. This means that you should know the more valid version of data, no? Otherwise, how would you know the former was not accurate?

Are you seriously saying that gun ownership data does not exist?

 

A perfect example of what I previously described, Archer. You have confused a pack mentality for valid critical thinking. While you have been busy patting each other on the backs, you appear to have lost sight of the science. It's a common mistake from your ilk here. Ironically you also transferred your shortcomings onto myself. This is also a common tactic here. Pity.

I have merely asked for evidence of critical thinking. I had no idea this would be so difficult for your side.