There's No Such Thing As An "American" Homicide Rate

Easy to spot bias. Easy to test for it.

No such bias exists. You'd have to go back to specific issues, such as 1970s injustices. The criminal justice system has of course changed since. Attitudes are also enlightened.

Of course there is violence. Never seen it myself mind you, despite regular trips to Belfast. You'll more likely to hear sectarian nonsense in Glasgow.

 

In the UK you are more likely to get stabbed to death than in the USA.

UK is a knife culture.

In the USA you are more likely to be killed by a car.

Either an old man who is DUI, or an old lady talking on her phone while driving, or a teen girl texting while driving, or a teen boy racing down the roadway like the Indy 500.

Guns have got nothing to do with it. Guns are just convenient porn that the anti gun crowd loves to talk dirty about.

 

He/she has a mouse in their pocket !!

 

there is universe wide data too.
Just as useless

 

This just in:

Cain kills Able with a military style assault rifle

 

An Assault stone.
Or club etc.....

 

Cain killed one.
Government has killed hudreds of millions

 

So has Tobacco.
Yet nobody wants to ban tobacco.
More people use tobacco.
Children under 12 use tobacco.

 

A churlish effort! The thread would only have a point if national data is only used. Combining aggregated and disaggregated sources is just common sense.

 

You make no sense, you cannot compare elements unrelated.
The F.B.I. cautions against ranking as blind statistics do not take into account many other important factors.

 

Of course you can compare aggregated and disaggregated information. Plenty of econometric methods which enable it.

The standard approach mind you would be to use aggregated data to remark on trends (such as potential structural breaks) and then use more disaggregated sources (which enable greater variation in the dependent variable) to disentangle the factors behind those trends.

 

Uh, uh, uh,..........he said ,"Common sense."

 

I see your methods haven't advanced...

 

Just for you common sense boy

 

No, that fails, same as it does in standard Medical practice, in double blind studies, it gives an overall effect of a medication on two large test groups, one a placebo, yet individual results and factors are not tabulated to reflect other potential dangers and other salient factors.

A real study would show how everyday people defend themselves and not lump law abiding people with criminals and lawful defense with criminal acts.

You advocate a type of statisical analyisis that can never admit a legitimate need or use for guns, the true driving force and the main Agenda and your primary motivation, Gun Control.

It has not worked in New York City or Los Angeles or any other major U.S. Metropolis.

 

I haven't referred to treatment effects modelling. I've referred to econometric analysis into trends.

You continue to make nonsensical comment. These studies, by definition, include defence effects. The coefficients are not restricted to being positive or negative. If defence effects dominate, results will be consistent with your opinion. I'm sorry, they're not.

I advocate an evidence-based approach. I am very much open to all available analysis. I have acknowledged, on several occasions, that Kleck's analysis is worthwhile. However, you simply do not like the repercussions of an evidence-based approach. It necessarily leads to questioning the validity of core beliefs.

 

Stats don't matter to individuals with the need to protect themselves.

 

You claim trends and econometric studies and evidence,
Well here is a slice of your own pie, people that live in slums and have a criminal past, starting at age 9 are more likely to raise a family that will also follow a life of crime, and unsafe firearms practices to include unsafe gun handling and storage, not likely to buy an easy to obtain gun safe at either Home Depot or Harbor freight.

Contrast that with a family that lives in a better neighborhood with no criminal history, safely stores guns in a safe, has CCW, go to college and insures their cars and lives proper lives.

This is of course an over simplification, people are individuals and no statistics can ever be accurate or fairly reflect actual game changing events in any family or be fair to the vast Majority of legitimate law abiding gun owners.

 

You're merely repeating your appeal for a non-evidence approach. No need. I already know that you're not interested in the evidence.

 

Bull crap, you refuse to see evidence, all of your so called evidences is all second hand, anecdotal, I have at least experience as a LEO and observed first hand evidence of what gun control accomplishes here in the U.S. as well as many Countries serving on assignment.
In the Medical feild, my training involved much reading, however, hands on clinical work was of more value when treating patients, and these on an individual basis, case by case.

There are too many factors to validate a blanket study over the evidence supplied by individuals as opposed to a Nationwide effect.

 

This only advertises that you don't understand what is undertaken in an evidence-based approach. Again, I already know that.

 

No, that is more bull crap, I studied Electronics and later Medical, both evidence based, Maths, and later in Law Enforcement, also based on evidence and facts.

Why do you not present evidence and real facts, rather than false politically motivated biased blanket statements.

 

Lovely, but irrelevant to the empirical methods used on this topic. You have opinions. I applaud you. You do not support those opinions with evidence. Instead you dismiss the evidence because of its inconvenience. We both know that, so why dance around it?

 

What evidence have you presented ?
None, you are the one tap dancing around presenting blind studies that ignores individidual experience because it suits you not one jot.

Prove with evidence that a blind study is able to support your agenda of more gun control and more restrictions on gun ownership.

 

You know how to search? Check my record. I have no need to justify my evidence-based approach. Its just rational.