Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

Violence and crime.

 

Why?

Are you saying that gun crime isn't down in Australia, or are you saying that knife crime isn't up in Australia?

If you want to link or unlink the two, do your own research - I'm not your intern.

 

Try and help him! Can you show one piece of evidence that supports a link between Australian gun and knife crime (e.g. a basic substitution effect)?

 

Why? Already said! So you're actually saying something relevant. We of course both know that evidence doesn't exist. We of course also know that evidence shows that Australian gun control has significantly reduced death rates.

 

Why do these two events have to be linked?

Regardless of what you may choose to believe or disbelieve, the simple facts remain --

1) Gun crime is down in Australia.
2) Knife crime is up in Australia.

Whether or not there is a correlation between the two is up to the egghead boffins to prove.

I suggest you go to Australia and research this. Send us a link to your research when you complete it, I'm sure we'll all be interested in reading it. Personally, I think it will be more effective than Ambien!

 

To glean relevancy for a gun control forum. The simple facts remain:

1) You know that the two aren't linked
2) You know that evidence shows gun control has reduced death rates

 

I am not going to spoon feed you information.

I can read as can you so unless you need your hand held and your ass wiped I suggest you actually support something for once.

 

Let's be more accurate here: you haven't got any information. No problem, its expected!

 

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime/victims.aspx

I can think.

 

But you haven't 'thought'. You've given raw data of no use to the fellow in his attempt to grab a snippet of relevancy

 

I never said they were or weren't - I merely reported the news. Gun crime is down, knife crime is up. Can you show me some evidence that they are NOT linked? Hmmm?

Oh really?

This is the lead-in to the paper mentioned in the Australian Institute of Criminology press release I posted. You can Google it for yourself, I'm tired of doing your research.

In case you missed that, allow me to repeat --

Well, well, well... looky what we have here!

 

Yep, we both can agree you haven't said anything relevant.

I've already shown how gun control has been found to reduce death rates. I managed relevancy!

This made me laugh!

We have an increase in knife crimes. No link with guns though. At the very least you'd have to show a substitution effect. This is all very obvious. Even the dogmatic herd should be able to understand it

 

Oh no, no, no, you don't get off that easy!

You've stated repeatedly, time and time again, ad nauseaum, that increased gun control reduces death rates.

Since Australia instituted a more strict firearms control policy in the aftermath of the Port Arthur shootings, then a decline in homicides would be expected.

Now we're seeing information from the Australians that shows otherwise - the homicide rate remains about the same, and homicide by knife has increased!

Kinda blows your pet theory out of the water, doesn't it?

 

Me? I'm merely trying to get you to say something relevant to the thread. You know that you can't link knife and gun crime. You know you cannot refer to substitution effects. You know that evidence shows significant reductions in death rates because of gun control.

I actually referred to an empirical study that shows it has.

At least we've managed to provoke you to try and come out with an argument. Unfortunately its the standard spurious relationship drivel! Define "ceteris paribus"?

No, merely shows that you don't understand how to refer to evidence!

 

No it shows a couple of things as do many other sources.

Guns/Knives and crime rate. Data shows that if there is a decrease in gun violence there is an increase in knife violence. This can be shown as a percentage.

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current series/tandi/401-420/tandi417.aspx

Gun crime is going down. Now even when you take into account tends this can only be a direct correlation to a lack of guns.

Also the next time I hear someone (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about our guns I will ask them to read up:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x171267

 

"Ceteris parabus" is a Latin phrase meaning "with all else being equal". It is commonly used by economists and econometricians when their pet theories are shown not to hold up to real-world situations, thereby giving them something to explain their failure to accurately predict results.

How do you explain the facts, Reiver?

Australia instituted a gun control program, and all the modelling indicated that consequently the homicide rate should drop. For homicide by firearm, the rate did drop, but for overall homicide rate, it didn't drop.

How do you explain that?

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the theory was wrong? That hypothetical scenarios do not accurately reflect reality?

 

Well done. You're now on the path to enlightenment. Crikey, I reckon you'll eventually be able to refer to a non-spurious relationship!

Facts? That evidence shows that gun control has reduced death rates. That you cannot link knife and gun crime. That you are going for a decidedly low brow spurious relationship (forced into it mind you as you already knew you were on a loser)

 

You can not prove that the absence of firearms in in any way related to a lower murder rate; can you?

 

You're wrong. The facts show that in this instance, gun control DID NOT reduce the overall homicide rate.

 

No, he can't.

The Australians report that - despite the gun control measures they've implemented - the overall homicide rate stays about the same, thereby disproving one of Reiver's pet theories.

I suggest we go easy on him for a bit, this has got to be a bitter pill for him to swallow!

 

Again, I've referred directly to the empirical evidence. That shows gun control, ceteris paribus, has indeed reduced death rates. Now you can refer to other variables that impact on crime rates. That would be an exercise in the 'bleedin obvious', as anyone with even the most basic knowledge into criminology would inform you.

This has been an unhappy exchange though. I did hope that you'd be more cunning in your bid to hide from your total reliance on spurious relationship. Perhaps next time?

 

AHHH the truth. You have no foundation for your posts unless you have no idea what empirical evidence is. Do you think you have a more important opinion than others? You come across as an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) man. An ignorant (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) at that.

1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism

 

Its only rational to adopt an evidence-based approach. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise

 

But you seem to think your observations mean more than the observations of others and this is why you come across as an ass.

You are constantly asking for evidence when you really have no clue.

I mean you said: "Again, I've referred directly to the empirical evidence."

Opinion and when others present a counter you dismiss it in lieu of your opinion.

 

One doesn't refer to observations, one refers to hypothesis testing. Basic stuff really!