Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Makedde, Jan 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant except to the feasibility of a gun ban. This is about logic, evidence and rationality. You shouldn't find the three so unpalatable!
     
  2. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tell ya what. You propose a way to stop the drugs coming in to the US. The growing Latin American Gang violence, the influx of criminals, the liberal court system....and I will think about giving up my guns.

    The US is not Europe.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most of the evidence that cannot reject the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis is American. You continue to show a complete disregard for the evidence and I find that most disagreeable
     
  4. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look at mexico! Look what we deal with in the US. Come over here and live in some areas. They do not need guns. Many will take what they want and if they want your ass they will take that and they will not use lube. You think you know something but you are ignorant of reality.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You won't be able to use that to discount your agreement that gun prevalence increases homicide. You also won't be able to use it to discount the evidence that shows gun control reduces homicide. The evidence isn't your friend
     
  6. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you ever thought I denied it I am sorry that I gave that impression. Guns do increase the homicide rate bet they generally lower the overall crime rate. It would be interesting to see a study about the true cost by weighing the increased crime costs in monetary and societal terms.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Support that with a study! Please take into account Lott has already been discounted
     
  8. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
  9. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In post #136, I posted the lead-in to the Australian Institute of Criminology report that stated --

    Australia has implemented gun control. The number of deaths from firearms has declined, yet the overall rate of homicide remains constant, and the death rate from knives has increased.

    And your reply to this is...? (Probably the form of psychological manipulation known as "diversion".)
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't this just repetition? You have to show that there has been some form of substitution effect between guns and knives. If you cant your argument is simple "unless guns predict 100% of homocides we can ignore the importance of gun control". As I'm sure you'd agree, that argument would be idiotic
     
  11. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You did not even read the abstract did you?
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know Duggan's paper and I know it kicks your position in the knackers
     
  15. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Glad you like it because his conclusion is counter to yout guns = crime.

    [​IMG]

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967.pdf?new_window=1

    Supporting one of my points and the other is supported by rising crime rates.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read closer. It confirms what I've said: the crime effect is skewed towards homicide. Crikey, you sure you're not a gun control lobbyist?
     
  17. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No you said more guns = more crime and I countered stating more guns = more homicide. I could also say more guns = less crime but I have no study stating that and numbers that the rest of us understand must come with a peer review for you.
     
  18. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Irrelevant??? Let's see, we take an area that isn't suppose to have any firearms and compare it to a place where the populace is armed. As I said, that's like comparing Yemen's auto accidents per capita to the U.S.'s auto accidents to prove what terrible drivers Americans are. You can't do it and come up with any kind of reasonable statistics or data.
     
  19. GeneralZod

    GeneralZod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why so much complaining? This is the best topic on this forum.

    Anti gun vs Pro gun. Academic datasets, numoures links, and debate on going in 50+ pages.

    But have any conclusions been reached in such heated exchanges.
     
  20. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then how do you explain the increase in homicides by knives?

    True or False -- You've repeatedly stated that "more guns = more crime", ergo "less guns = less crime".

    True or False -- Australia has implemented some of the world's most restrictive firearm laws.

    True or False -- The Australian Institute of Criminology documents that knife crime has increased and overall homicide rate remains the same.

    You can obfuscate all you want, and deny, deny, deny until they close this thread, but the data from the Australian Institute of Criminology illustrates that "more guns = more crime" is an invalid hypothesis.
     
  21. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There will be no conclusion reached on this subject. It is not that the data is the issue it is that emotions on both sides are working and the fact that humans are the issue.

    I can accept Reivers studies but not the conclusions because too many variables are left out. So does a drug dealer getting killed in a gun fight and his killer being locked up have a positive or negative impact?

    I say it is good because it saves money long term.
     
  22. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In my opinion, Reiv is comparing apples to peanuts. You can not look at countries who's population are unarmed and most of it's citizens wouldn't know what to do with a firearm if it was handed to him/her and compare them with a nation that has over 300 million firearms in the citizens hands and say, look, the U.S. has a much higher gun crime rate than all these other countries. It's stupid on the face of it.
     
  23. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Rubbish, just more intellectual drivel.
     
  24. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    S/he posts continually the "more guns = more crime" hypothesis, which on the face of it seems to make sense. But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the data from the Australian Institute of Criminology doesn't back that theory up.

    If the theory that "more guns = more crime" is true, then the opposite is also true - "less guns = less crime". However, the Australians report that since they've instituted their strict controls on private possession of firearms, that the overall murder rate has remained constant, and the number of homicides committed using knives has increased.

    It would make sense that if firearms are made less accessible to the citizens of any given city/state/country, that the crime rate should drop, just as it would make sense that if firearms are introduced into a city/state/country that the rate of crime should increase. The real world experience we've seen reported by the Australians contradicts what the studies theorize should be the result of a policy of firearm restriction.

    Reiver claims that we can't draw any conclusions from the Australian Criminology report - that because there are too many external variables, because all things aren't equal, because we don't have a peer-reviewed research paper that factors in these variables, we can't come to the conclusion that "less guns = less crime", nor can we come to the conclusion that the Australians - in the absence of firearms - have found different ways of killing each other.

    Yet, when asked to explain this report from the Australians, when asked to account as to why the "more guns = more crime" theory doesn't seem to apply in this instance, Reiver has continually stonewalled, diverted the topic in different directions, obfuscated, and repeatedly refused to address why this may be the case.

    In short, his/her position is "My theory is right, and you can't prove it wrong, because you don't have any research papers!" Sadly, this is seen far too often in real-world situations.

    Remember about twelve years ago when the scientists released data that supposedly proved a link between the mercury-based preservative in children's vaccines and autism? That was finally proven to be flawed research, and no link was ever shown to exist between the two. Yet the "true believers" prevented their children from obtaining vaccinations, and consequently outbreaks of measles, mumps, and rubella were reported. *Here* Scientific theory disproven by real-world application.

    It's sad, but that's the way it goes...
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This made me laugh. Well done!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page