Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

The data leads to straight forward conclusion: gun control reduces deaths

 

Which does seem obvious in it's simpliticy. It is hard to argue against "although many have and will try on this part of the forum"

 

Just exactly where did you get your Queen Elizabeth / lizard people reference? I used no such "tabloid" terminology. You attack with spurious innuendo when caught pontificating on subjects you have no experience with. Oh, and for the record, you coming from a gun owning family does not make you knowledgeable in this area, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. You do however, entertain me, with your pseudo-intellectual claptrap. I have yet to stop chuckling. Again, nice try.

 

We get the same reaction: i.e. a selective use of sources designed to ensure bias remains unchallenged. The only difference is the severity of the bias.

You haven't understood the comment. Tabloids refer to specific examples (a variation of 'in my experience') in order to provide a skewed understanding that ignores the objective evidence. You're doing the same.

It describes how you make assumptions in order to feed your bias. I don't have to bother with such malarkey. I refer only to the evidence

 

There is a total disregard for the evidence. That's a shame but understandable I suppose. Folk don't like their core values challenged by the unfortunate nature of reality

 

Are you still trying to shovel that?

Over and over you keep relying on data and over and over I have conclusively shown did not re-normalize the psi function properly. The result of improper re-normalization leads to a highly irregular and non-linear conclusion. Your statistical proof would be laughed at if presented in an academic setting.

 

So, can anyone explain "I am not bothered with links, Unless the journalism at the highest standard"

Why NOT having gun control would result in fewer deaths?

 

A carefull look at your evidence shows a very weak correlation. I suppose you could fudge the sigma correlation and say that there is some correlation, but you and I know that would be unethical in an academic setting. So stop it.

 

Well I posted AU government studies.

If you are going to kill you are going to kill. Gun or not.

 

There are numerous papers that directly test the impact of gun control. Its of no surprise that significant reductions in death rates are the norm. The only distinction is in the extent that reflects homicide and the extent it reflects suicide

 

I agree, most criminals make up their minds whether to commit a crime before getting hold of the gun.

 

Again, that isn't supported by the evidence. Examples: Cook and Ludwig (2006, The social costs of gun ownership, Journal of Public Economics, Vol 90, pp 379-391) conclude that "an increase in gun prevalence causes an intensification of criminal violence—a shift toward greater lethality, and hence greater harm to the community". Duggan (2001, More Guns, More Crime, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109, pp 1086-114) concludes that "guns influence crime primarily by increasing the homicide rate". Gius (2009, The effect of gun ownership rates on homicide rates: a state-level analysis, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 16, pp 1687-1690) notes that "gun ownership rates have a statistically significant and positive effect on the homicide rates".

 

Holy death by accident Bat Man!

Me too. I was going to compile a list, very scientific of course, of all the people who died as a result of illegal drugs.

I am not doing this for debate, but to prove how effective making something illegal can be!

Wow.....are we on the same page or what?

 

Maybe this debate should be condensed. Not a blanket view to control but segments of society. Gun ownership in urban enviroments? tightly bunched people in high rise blocks of apartments 'flats' where such closeness can result in violent argument.

Also guns are banned in sports arenas, musical concerts, clubs etc... And obviously schools. There is an enviroment already of restriction and control.

 

Your retarded, your focusing on evidence that is flawed and probally baised, rather than thinking logically.

 

guns influence crime primarily by increasing the homicide rate...hmmm. Do i need to tell anyone how retarded that statement sounds?

 

lets see they ban guns in 1996:

Contrasting with trends in England and Wales, Scotland (Figure 2) saw a marked decline
(of almost 80 per cent) in crime involving handguns in the five years after the Dunblane
shootings and the Firearms (Amendment) No. 1 and No. 2 Acts of 1997. Crime involving
shotguns fell sharply after 1994. Overall, there was a sustained fall in ‘gun crime’ in the
ten years to 2001. However, more recently it has risen since 2003–2004. As is the case
in England and Wales, rates of air weapon crime in Scotland are far higher than all other
types of ‘gun crime’.


The biggest proportionate increases in types of firearms recorded as being misused
between 1998–1999 and 2006–2007 (see Figure 1) have been:
l Imitation firearms (up 345 per cent from 566 to 2,517)
l Unidentified firearms (up 92 per cent from 665 to 1,277)
l Handguns (up 55 per cent from 2,687 to 4,175).
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus713/ccjs_gun_crime_report.pdf

So no gun deterrent more gun crime.

 

it actually has the exact opposite conclusion, as the evidence has shown.

 

Therein lies the beauty of using econometrics - if the results don't correspond with the model, you can always fall back on the "ceteris paribus" excuse and claim that everything wasn't equal.

Example --

Your local weatherman forecasts partly cloudy, with a high of 55F for tomorrow. Tomorrow turns out to be 52F and raining. The weatherman then uses the excuse that if it had been 55F, it would have been partly cloudy - but because it wasn't...

It's rationalization at its best! When the actual real-world results don't correlate with what was predicted, it's not that the prediction was flawed, it's that the reality didn't accurately reflect the predicted results.

Time after time we've been bombarded with the theory that "more guns = more crime". If that's true, then the opposite is also true - "less guns = less crime". However, as we've recently discovered from the Australian Institute of Criminology, that isn't necessarily the case.

In the aftermath of the Port Arthur shootings, Australia implemented severe restrictions on the private possession of firearms - which theoretically should have reduced the overall homicide rate.

But it didn't. According the the AIC report, the overall homicide rate has remained constant for the twenty-some years since the firearm restrictions were implemented. The overall number of homicides as a result of firearms has dropped, while the overall number of homicides as a result of knives has increased.

Therefore, we can come to two possible conclusions --

One is that because there hasn't been a peer-reviewed study that isolates the variables in this data, a study that uses "...quantitative evidence that is free from spurious grunt, with techniques that avoid empirical bias and provide(s) for tests of robustness", that this is meaningless.

The other is that in the absence of firearms, the Australians have simply figured out other ways of committing homicide.

Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness), is a principle that generally recommends that, from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.

With that said, let me leave you with this - everybody needs something to believe in. I believe I'll have some ice cream!

 

Friend I guaranty you that IF anyone breaks into my home they will die from gun shot wounds. I will also guaranty you that anyone that trys to take my weapons from me will meet with the same fate. And while your counting, try counting the lives saved every year by guns in private owners hands. This knife cuts both ways and again, I will guaranty you that those who have protected themself's with weapons will out weigh those that have died by gun shot wounds.

 

I like you.

 

How typical. An American claiming he will kill someone simply for taking his guns away. Since when do Americans support the death penalty for theft?
I won't break into your home, I have no reason to, and think it is ghastly that you would murder someone just for taking away a firearm.

 

Here's another one. This time, a cop shoots dead a Marine because the Marine was 'acting irrationally'. Oh, and he was shot next to his car. With his two young daughters inside. Nice:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/marine-shot-.html

Right. Shoot first and ask questions later, right? What about wounding him? Why kill a man just because you don't like the way he is acting?

I hope the cop is charged and jailed.

 

First, sorry your thread got hijacked. Reiver made another pseudo-intellectual post, and we sorta piled on.

Anyway...

Mak, darling, regardless of what you've seen on the television from Hollywood, you don't shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. No fancy trick shots, no "shoot the hostage" stunts like Keanu Reeves did in Speed, nothing of the sort.

Rule #1 - Never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot.
Rule #2 - Never shoot anything you don't intend to kill.

Why shoot the Marine? Who knows? Perhaps he was acting irrationally, perhaps he refused to comply with the deputy's instructions, perhaps the deputy feared for the safety of the other people involved - there are a host of valid reasons.

 

You should not shoot someone dead unless they are a threat to you. From what I have heard, the Marine wasn't acting in a threatening manner.