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

Its more than just probabilities, else it would be called Prob and not Stats. That you deemed it relevant to refer to probabilities, when the difference mentioned is about samples versus populations, just was a little irksome. I want you fellows to be more knowledgeable after all!

 

Really??

https://publichealthwatch.wordpress...h-debunks-gun-lobbys-favorite-talking-points/

 

Bull

Australia and New Zealand are not dissimilar cultures and backgrounds although I,admit we Aussies given your logic should be a group of thieving criminals

What is markedly different is the "gunslinger/Rambo" belief. The early westerns that embedded a belief that the white hats would always beat the black hats and that idiots with Uzis are not a danger to everyone but a braves freedom fighter

 

Why would colour matter? Drug dealers come in all colours

 

Yes really. Studies have been done for decades.

- From 2009-2010, the top gun murder rate areas were: New Orleans, Memphis, Detroit, Birmingham, St. Louis, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Philadelphia and Chicago. The home of some of the highest gun control laws.

- A study from Sage Journals in 2016 says:
A city-level cross-sectional analysis was performed on data pertaining to every U.S. city with a population of at least 25,000 (n = 1,07, assessing the impact of 19 major types of gun control laws, and controlling for gun ownership levels and numerous other possible confounders. Models were estimated using instrumental variables (IVs) regression to address endogeneity of gun levels due to reverse causality. Results indicate that gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates. Although a minority of laws seem to show effects, they are as likely to imply violence-increasing effects as violence-decreasing effects.

- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.” Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

- According to data from the FBI’s uniform crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it — it was California.

- After the gun ban in DC was enacted the gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.

I could go on and on with example after example.

 

They still bend their knees to the Queen of England, do they not?

 

A relevant paper. Note that it is one of very few supporting your stance. Most, like Cook & Ludwig, reject it.

This isn't even an empirical study, nor is it a complete review (e.g. it doesn't even manage to reference Duggan)

But where is your quality control?

 

Your opinion is fine, but the opinion of studies done for decades are more relevant to me.

 

I didn't come out with opinion. I came out with fact. Kleck is in the minority of studies. Your other paper was very poor, providing neither empirical analysis or review.

 

You did come out with opinion.

Relevant paper, few supporting your stance, not a complete review, Duggan.......alll opinions. Stating your opinion as fact does not make it so.

Stating that most don’t support my view is also just false.

So again, you’re opinion means very little when you dishonestly and disingenuously give it.

 

What was that then?

That isn't opinion. A review that doesn't refer to Duggan isn't a review. That the majority of papers support the 'more guns=more crime' is just a matter of fact.

Sounds like you haven't reviewed the evidence!

I've shown no dishonesty. I continue to apologise that the evidence doesn't support the pro-gunner opinion.

 

wrong again, dishonest and disingenuous again. I have provided my proof, the studies are there, your opinion is all you are giving. You can beat your drum all you want but it doesn’t change anything. You opinion is just that, calling it fact or saying you know better than the studies, or saying you know what the studies should say proves that your opinion is not to be taken seriously.

 

Did you read the article that didn't actually review the evidence or provide any empirical analysis? I liked the Kleck piece, but why the nonsense one? Because you're copying and pasting on site telling you what to read?

I haven't referred to my opinion. That would refer to stuff like behavioural comment. I have no need to refer to it.

 

not sure how many times I need to say this, like talking to a wall. Your opinion on what pieces you like, what you think they should say, what you think they prove, what you think makes them relevant....does not matter to me. It does not matter because I do not like people who present their opinion as fact.

I have read dozens of articles, studies, statistics, and so on. I believe their results of your disingenuously presented opinions. I have presented some of those here in a basic format as not to take days to read. The fact they don't say what you want or think, or weren't competed the way you want or think is irrelevant to me.

You presented your opinion on multiple occasions here (that really have nothing to do with the original topic but whatever), and you continue to present it as factual. What made you the higher power on determining what a study should do? Or what it should say? Or hiw it should be done? Or what makes it relevant? THOSE ARE ALL YOUR OPINION! Get it?

 

You could just answer the question? Did you read the article that didn't actually review the evidence or provide any empirical analysis?

The issue isn't my opinion. It is that you would refer to a bad source and pretend otherwise. I celebrate Kleck's analysis. That you would refer to an irrelevant non-review only tells me you do not understand basic literature review method.

If you are well read then you know that most studies support the 'more guns=more crime hypothesis'.

Again, I haven't mentioned opinion. I have personal comment over guns (e.g. I admit that my family have used guns for self-defence). This is about the empirical approach. And you clearly do not get it

 

Those interested in data should consider the FBI and CDC stats.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....f_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

 

I don't need your lectures about probabilities something I mastered about grade 8. It's useful for casino games, something I know a bit about.

 

Splendid!

 

Then your opinions are obviously clouding your ability to come to a sound conclusion. And yet you talk about bias. Do tell. Besides you haven't mentioned your personal bias.

 

A random response. Each to their own

 

For those who like data:

 

For those who like data analysis? Wouldn't that be jolly?

 

Hardly random, besides you're wrong.

 

From what do you deduce from that data? From the other data I've posted?

 

Nothing. You can't use raw data to derive conclusion.