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

The burden of proof or onus is on you.
You have at least been consistent in your lack of evidence and verbosity.

 

I've got nothing to prove. Our discussions have all been the same: I refer to the evidence; you don't. I have no interest in your efforts to hide from that reality.

 

You prove nothing. By your analysis there will be never be a population identified at risk. Besides no one gets off the planet alive.

 

Technically you reject or fail to reject. Very few pro-gunners seem to know the basics of empirical analysis. I couldn't possibly comment over the 'why'...

 

You've beaten empirical to death. If you walk the streets of Baltimore or Chicago tonight ( the biggest day of risk) what will the empirical evidence tell you?

 

You have no evidence of anything

 

Isn't this the standard approach? Rather than referring to objective research, let's go with tabloidism

 

I know why.
You refuse or fail to see or even acknowledge a positive side or benefit to owning firearms and with your Ivory tower approach and academia and vocabulary and obfuscation, you effectively deflect and evade any practical attempt to use common methods to prove or disprove the benefits of or the deleterious effects of legitimate firearms possession and uses.

 

I never have, I do not quote anyone, I go by my own experiences and those people I know and observe..

 

It's where it starts then you really begin testing. Basic morbidity and mortality analysis is simple math. Lets look at Baltimore. Would the B-more homicide /shooting rate be reflective of the US as whole, the state of Baltimore or a Democratically controlled city? It's the conclusion that matters.

 

Nice bit of anti-intellectualism thrown in there! Shame you went for the predictable, but hey ho!

I don't ignore possible positive effects. Self-defence can certainly improve an individual's utility. But that doesn't give a blank cheque to imposing costs on others (and the 'more guns=more crime' cannot be rejected). Of course the US knows that. Its always had gun control after all. This is about what optimal gun control entails.

 

Ha.

Nice try

You fail in your accusation of Anti -intellectualism when my entire life has been
predicated on education and Intellectualism from a very early age.

In Maths, you follow a formulae that leads to an answer, an equation and answer.
Firearms in society can be evaluated by math as long as the many details of firearms ownership are factored in, the Federal B of Investigation has well defined and proved the most salient aspects of gun ownership.


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/caution-against-ranking


"Variables Affecting Crime"

"excerpt from UCR by FBI"

"Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents."

Consider other characteristics of a jurisdiction

"To assess criminality and law enforcement’s response from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one must consider many variables, some of which, while having significant impact on crime, are not readily measurable or applicable pervasively among all locales. Geographic and demographic factors specific to each jurisdiction must be considered and applied if one is going to make an accurate and complete assessment of crime in that jurisdiction. Several sources of information are available that may assist the responsible researcher in exploring the many variables that affect crime in a particular locale. The U.S. Census Bureau data, for example, can be used to better understand the makeup of a locale’s population. The transience of the population, its racial and ethnic makeup, its composition by age and gender, educational levels, and prevalent family structures are all key factors in assessing and comprehending the crime......."

 

I haven't tried anything. I did, mind you, demonstrate that your accusation is wrong. Sorry!

This is Statistics. Didn't they mention the difference?

 

You cherry pick and tap dance around and have proved nothing of value, no solid evidence.
Anarchy ?

 

I'm not the one that confuses maths with stats. But I don't mind you not apologising for your error. I'm a friendly sort.

 

Maths & Stats ?
Probability & Statistics was a college Math course.

How does one confuse a subsection of Maths, which is statistical analysis ?

 

Stats is quite different from Maths. There's no "formulae that leads to an answer" obviously. There is uncertainty, by definition. Equations are used for two reasons. First, to justify the use of a specific empirical methodology. Second, within the error structure to ensure unbiased estimates.

 

First rule of stats;

A Sovereign, flipped 100,000 or > times, for heads or tails will approach 50/50 or 50 % end result.

Math

Insurance companies have complicated actuaries tables based on Maths and probability and statistics and statistical analysis, to accurately predict, events, within a margin or percentage of error.

Things such as accidents and deaths and groups of events, and the related aspects of the insurance business, in any case,
They ( Stats & Maths ) are married together and can't soon be divorced.

 

That helps you understand the difference between a sample and a population. Even then its irrelevant to you as we're talking about a sample with multiple variables. There's no formulaic truth.

Catch up!

 

Actually it's just simple probability.

 

Nope its more than that. Small samples increase error

 

No kidding. Are we back to casino game now?

 

We're just correcting your error. No need to thank me

 

Not mine, yours. The analogy provided dealt with probabilities. It's not even debatable. The sample size thing was just thrown out there for exactly what?

 

American culture is different from British, Euro and even Canadian culture for two main reasons: 1) Most of our ancestors fled the monarchies and aristocracies of "the old countries" because they prized individual freedom, unlike those left behind. 2) We revolted against our King and kicked his army out of our country. We chose to replace him with a Republic, not another King or dictator.

Ergo, you are making the mistake of comparing apples and oranges. Americans prize their freedom and right of self-defense, Brits, Euros and the like are content to bend their knees and let the state protect.