Conservatives in favor of gun control

Where are yor stats coming from? - Leconservateur

 

Fair enough. Just a shame that you didn't bother with a valid critique.

Using a random sample of approximately 2000 people is quite valid. Your response just shows an innocence of statistical analysis

 

Thank you for the reply. We are not off topic. The original poster is in favor of gun control and has asked why Americans need guns anymore.

(We need guns as an effective means of self defense. Last year (2010) there were 1.2 million violent crimes in the US because law enforcement could not get there in time to prevent them.)

I agree with you that gun control in its broadest definition is ineffective in curbing violent crime rates.

I also agree that most gun control laws should be thrown out. The majority of these laws have come about because of knee jerk reactions to make people feel like they did something after terribly violent events. These laws probably made people feel better in the moment but I'm not sure they had much impact, if at all, on violent crime.

I do believe we should have some gun control laws and processes. There should be:

1. a way to for law enforcement to identify the law abiding citizen that carries a firearm. Presently, it is a concealed carry license.

2. an improved reporting of law infractions and mental defect into a national database so that information can be used instantaneously by law enforcement in screening for firearms carry for initial licensing and daily ongoing updates to take away licensing.

3. firearm training that makes it crystal clear that a law abiding citizen is responsible criminally and civilly for each bullet that leaves the gun. (I am licensed to carry).

4. criminals caught with firearms should have a mandatory 15 year prison sentence.

 

I don't disagree with using a large random sample. Been there, done that, and I have made multi-million dollar decisions based on quantitative research.

My issue is making any type of decision based on 13 respondents from a 2,000 sample study.

 

They've created a sufficiently large random sample. Despite that, they find that only 2 report using a gun as self-defence in the home. This compares to 13 who have reported a gun being used against them at home. You may not like the results, but its not based on 13 respondents. Its based on 2000ish respondents. You're deliberately misrepresenting due to bias, nothing more

 

In a sampling of 2,000 people, 13 respondents is statistically nil.

 

Its actually 5% of the sample who have experienced a hostile gun display in the last 5 years. Of that, a 95% confidence interval for the respondent being the victim ranges from 7 to 22%. Moreover, there is a statistical significant difference between the probability of a family member being a victim and being protected in self-defence.

These findings are of course backed up elsewhere. Dahlberg et al (2004, Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 160, pp. 929-936)

 

In the study you reference*, there were 1906 people surveyed. Of those surveyed 13 responded that a gun was displayed against them in the home. Two people responded using the gun in self defense in the home.

When one fields a national survey and they plan to use the information to make decisions they gather a sufficient random sample to result in a minimum of 50 respondents. For stability purposes, the desired respondent pool is 200 people. Available budgets typically determine the size of the sample.

This study should have never seen the light of day.

* http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795369900283X

 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

See crime index per 100,000 inhabitants.

Since the mid 1990s, crime has been going down.

 

Nope. One would be able, for example, to give a regression analysis with about 20 respondents (but would require more as we have more control variables). In this sort of analysis we need a sufficiently large random sample. That is delivered with 2000ish respondents. We then have the interesting responses of 5% (some 97 responses, with between 7 and 22% of that sub-sample having a gun displayed against them in the home)

I'm happy for you to reference an article that supports your pre-determined position. I've presented 3 now

 

I believe you are confusing survey size with question respondents as you are using the terms interchangeably. The likely reason the study you present as fact has such a small respondent pool is that the sampling wasn't sufficiently funded.

Different special interest groups often field "national" surveys because they want to make a point to sway public opinion. Many times these groups are underfunded and pass off results under the guise that a "national sample" was taken and we talked to X thousands of people. When the survey yields a small number of respondents to the key questions - less than 50 - the special interest group still uses the statistics even though they are unstable and likely not representative of the population at large.

Unfortunately, I don't have a pre-determined position on gun violence in the home. Does it exist - sure it does. How often does it occur, I don't know. Does it occur more often than the use of a gun in self defense, I don't know and neither do the people that commissioned the study that you refer to.

Given that you have presented that initial study as fact, I have not spent time reviewing the other studies you reference.

 

I've exhibited no confusion. The study would be problematic if there was a small sample taken. That hasn't occurred. The idea that you need 50 responses for a specific variable to be analysed is nonsense. What we have is 97 responses, which then- through further disaggregation- can be used to show that there is a statistical significance over how guns are used within the household.

Of course, as I've already shown, the results are consistent with other study. I'm also waiting for you to offer an alternative source. 3 to zilch so far!

It hasn't got a small respondent pool. Using 2,000 respondents is quite standard. What we have is rarity in using guns in self-defence in the home. It further shows that rarity by showing a statistically higher chance of a gun being used against the family member.

Back to that 'its biased because it doesn't support my bias' cliché

Your reaction has exhibited zero objectivity. There's no question in that.

 

75% of elected Democrats (Nationally) are anti-2A, 80% of elected Republicans (Nationally) are pro 2A (Except RINO Big city Police Chiefs & Lesbian Naitive American & Latina Sherriffs)

 

I prepared an long point by point rebuttal, but I realized before I posted it that facts don’t work in your world. Either that or you are simply not getting it. Maybe its because you are lacking in understanding anything outside accounting or maybe you are being malicious in an attempt to salvage something from your truly dumb argument. I suspect the latter so allow me to simplify this so as to waste as little of my time as possible. Ok ; Your entire argument of what is optimal gun control fails. Your entire argument rests on subjective assumptions. For one of several example, what you are calling negative externalities aren’t negative everywhere. They may be in the UK, but not here in the USA. They may be in pacifist-land but they aren’t in Uganda. So your argument utterly fails when you attempt to export it anywhere but MAYBE the UK.

Rev A.

ps btw in the future words like negative externalities should be clarified. They are subject/term specific and do not work well when applied to real world situations.

 

And you do understand the meaning of red herring, don't you? You know, using sarcasm to imply your interlocutor doesn't understand your big words? It's awfully close to a personal attack. You know, the kind that people make when they know that their position is weak.

I will supply you with your controlled study data, because it is my pleasure to refute your arguments, but I cannot help it if you are too blind to see the data. For now, I will supply you with a link here: http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart11.htm, indicating that in states where the rate of gun ownership is greater, firearm related deaths are also higher.

 

Given I adopt an evidence-based approach this comment just doesn't make sense.

Nope. Analysis into externalities has nothing to do with subjective assumptions. As I said, the only assumption made is the valuation of a life. However, ad-hoc decisions can be avoided by simply adopting standard practice in cost-benefit analysis.

Given we're referring to the social costs from crime, this also doesn't make sense.

Its a simple reference to supply and demand. There's nothing complex about it. Look up Pigovian taxes if it helps you avoid the mistakes you've made in your latest post

 

Where are your stats coming from? - LeConservateur

 

Gator the Reivers of the world must to hide behind their world of numbers and such in an attempt to distort the reality of the situation. They don't understand that attempting to apply those numbers and studies fail to work in the majority of situations. Those people reminds me of when I was putting myself through school. I was an reinforcing and structural ironworker. I discovered that the dumbest and most stupid (but intelligent) people I have ever met were the engineers. Not the architects who were both educated and intelligent, no it was the god awful dumb engineers that mandated what the draftsmen drew into the blueprints that we used to erect the steel frames of bridges and skyscrapers. A reinforcing ironworkers job was to insert the rebar into forms. The engineers would try to put a square peg in a round hole routinely. As the foreman I would call them and explain that they could not do that, no matter what their computer and calculations told them. As I said, they were dumb. If their numbers said it would work they would go to their deaths bed thinking that round peg would go into a square hole.

See the analogy? The reivers of the world think their world of numbers, studies, statistics and probabilities translates into the real life of flesh and blood people perfectly! Well they don't! Statistics and probabilities etc are wonderful tools. However they rarely if ever are precise enough to be used everywhere. At best they are a MODEL of reality not REALITY itself.

Rev A

 

Again you merely use dogma to hide from the evidence. One is of course free to do that, but one should be open and admit it. Personally I don't see the point. An evidence-based approach, embracing individualism at the same time, is so much more straight-forward

 

See what I mean? I SAID THE EVIDENCE IS OFTEN CORRUPTED. Anyway I am not arguing the method of your argument, that seems to be sound despite your biases. I am claiming that the result ie the claim of your argument is invalid because of values variables or whatever you want to call it (each discipline has a different name for it) are assumptive corrupted or subjective.

Are you really that dense or are you intentionally attempting to misdirect? Analysis does not enter into externalities. However the definition of externalities themselves can be subjective.

Only if your argument is in your world. I have already defined why and how the assumptions and subjectivity (could*) destroy the validity of your entire claim of optimum gun control. The very best you could hope for was an LOCAL optimum gun control (OGC). By local I mean the UK (the smaller the size of claimed OGC the more accurate the claim).

What is good for the society is HIGHLY subjective. So again its not the density of your skull that is now in question. Its that you seem to be intentionally deceptive.

I am not arguing that point because its meaningless. I am attempting to get you to admit your ENTIRE argument is invalid. If I have misunderstood your use of term specific word salad comments (I haven't please stop attempting to misdirect) it makes no difference because of the reasons stated above.

Rev A

 

An evidence-based approach will assuredly adopt appropriate literature review technique, looking (scientifically) for error and inconsistency between methodologies. It doesn't mean simply telling 'bias' because its inconsistent with prior belief. Its a shame that the NRA and their ilk have hindered folk into adopting individual research methods.

Its not subjective. Its a market failure where the price doesn't reflect overall costs. You again show that you haven't understood how its being used.

No, you applied erroneous comment in order to avoid the simply supply and demand being utilised.

Nope, its a market analysis. Bit obvious really

This isn't about a social welfare function. This is simply about deadweight loss imposed by coercive preferences. I'll put it simply for you: You're tacitly in favour of coercion. I'm not.

 

I generally agree but, I used to live in a real bad area. On New Years Eve, you could hear lots of automatic weapon fire (not just semi-automatic but the distinct 'Brrrrr' of automatic fire) in the area. I often thought that if things got really bad, I'd be at a distinct disadvantage by following the law.

 

When you use, as you have here, an invalid premise, then any conclusion you care to draw from it will be equally invalid. The European Union instituted some unified gun laws that were adopted by its members. Switzerland is one of those members,friend.

 

Unfortunately, you are drawing conclusions and basing your opinions on a poorly designed and clearly underfunded research study. That much is clear. That you don't understand that makes it difficult to objectively move forward.

I haven't come across any valid research studies that prove that gun violence in the home is more likely than using a gun for self-defense. You haven't either. Just because a study is made available doesn't mean it was fielded and interpreted correctly.

 

Now you're mincing words. The size of this army is completely relevant to your flawed position on this. You may chose to consider the existence of a National Army in 1791, or perhaps consider the absence of it during the conception of the Constitution. It does NOT change the fact that it was not capable of deterring a foreign invasion at that time, nor was it meant to be. The Framers intended the citizens to take this role, rightly or wrongly.

In THAT text, yes. In the Federalist Paper #29 He was talking about National defense. Are you actually saying that we should disregard #29?

Yes by time that 1791 came around, things changed somewhat. This is a perfect example how the framers were mere mortals and did not forsee all circumstances. This is why many refer to the Constitution as a living document.