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
    Incorrect 1! I always refer accurately to the subject area. That is a very important element. The problem is that you don't, as shown by my ability to get you to admit that you're reliant purely on spurious relationship

    Incorrect 2! I refer specifically to published peer reviewed studies that test gun hypothesis. Its darn obviously the correct approach, but you know that you cannot do the same as the evidence is against you

    Incorrect 3! I don't think I've seen, for example, you refer to one study. You ignore the evidence as the evidence is against you. I'm happy to consider any source of course. I do expect to see gun effects to be isolated (that's mere rationality!) and I do expect to see robustness checks (that's mere basic literature reviewing).
     
  2. greatgeezer

    greatgeezer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Just make sure to separate the police shootings, self inflicted intentional shootings, justifiable shootings in self defense, from the criminal shootings. And by criminal, don't count TECHNICALLY criminal shootings, such as stupidly restrictive gun laws, etc. You will find your stats come out much more in favor of gun ownership that you think they will.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't come out short here! Can you refer to a study in support of your argument? It would be great to see you improving on the standards set by the previous fellows in this thread
     
  4. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not reliant on any "spurious relationship", I'm merely posting the FACTS, not some "peer reviewed" hypothesis. Private ownership of firearms in Australia has been heavily restricted for over 20 years, but the overall homicide rate remains constant. Ergo, the "more guns = more crime" hypothesis is incorrect, because if it were, then the opposite - "less guns = less crime" would be correct. But in this case, it isn't.

    Apparently your "...peer reviewed studies that test gun hypothesis" don't hold water in light of the facts.

    After referring to numerous Dept. of Justice and FBI reports, and having them dismissed by you because they weren't "peer reviewed", I realized that it was futile. Why waste my time when my ice cream is melting?

    All your prattling, all your obfuscation, all your denial doesn't change this simple fact - In spite of the restrictions placed on private ownership of firearms in Australia, the overall homicide rate remains almost constant.

    Since you can't explain why, or admit that your studies may be incorrect, you attempt to sidetrack the issue with obtuse and grandiose statements about "studies", and "peer reviews", and "ceteris parabus".

    That's the way you operate. You know it, I know it, and anyone who has ever posted in this sub-forum knows it.

    If you doubt that, ask around. Unfortunately, you won't be able to find any peer reviewed studies that test that hypothesis.

    If you'll excuse me, I must get some air - I've spent too much time in "The Reiver Vortex".
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The use of raw data will at least encourage spurious conclusion, given there are no controls for the other crime impacting variables. However, you've clearly (and tiresomely too without any sense of humour) gone for a spurious relationship deliberately.

    Again, we have empirical evidence that successfully tests the hypothesis that gun control has reduced death rates. That there are other variables at play is obvious, as you well know.

    This is drivel. Hypothesis testing, by definition, has to isolate the variables being tested.

    This is splendidly silly comment! We're talking about quantitative evidence that is free from spurious grunt, with techniques that avoid empirical bias and provide for tests of robustness.

    Incorrect again! I haven't rejected reports. I've rejected your deliberate use of the reports to make spurious conclusion. The reports themselves aren't guilty of such folly.

    Again, your whole reaction is but a tantrum-based reaction to what you know: the evidence doesn't support you
     
  6. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Blind them with BullSheite"
     
  7. greatgeezer

    greatgeezer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Sir, as I am sure you are painfully aware, most "studies" are highly flawed, and easily skewed to the direction of the person, or persons, doing the "studies". But based on my personal, first hand experience, my assertions will prove correct. I merely await the results of this study, in lieu of prior flawed, speculative, analysis, which you seem to rely on.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is actually nonsense. Most studies use datasets available to all. Its therefore very easy to test the validity of a paper's methodology. If a paper is biased you should be able to refer to a counter-paper that details that bias. Why can't you?

    Tabloidism isn't of much use. Those that argue the Queen is a Lizard Person also utilise it. Stick to the evidence! Reference something that supports your stance
     
  9. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yup, you're correct. Absolutely correct. 110%, never been wrong, "don't have an eraser on the end of my pencil cause I never make mistakes" correct.

    That's why you have your reputation turned to "Off" - you're so correct you don't care what people think.

    Right?
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given my objectivity and ability to refer to the evidence, I'm simply able to defend my argument. You haven't been able to.
     
  11. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Object is more like it. As deaf and dumb as a rock.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can understand your sense of impotence on this subject, given you cannot counter my correct use of the evidence. However, I still advise you to at least try. Here's a simple question for you (which I've asked several time but am still hopeful you'll be persuaded to answer): Is it the case that you cannot refer to one empirical study that finds substitution effects between guns and knives?
     
  13. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Impotence? Boy I have bent you over and run up deep in you. The issue is you stay bent over and are run up in so much that you don't notice and more.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its the lack of evidence that will always ensure your powerlessness on this topic
     
  15. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have presented plenty. You are just tooooo far down the evolutionary tree to understand.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you've merely referred to background data and abused its nature. You haven't understood how the empirical approach operates within criminology. Try referring to a journal such as the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. That will help you catch up
     
  17. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

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

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again no actual content in your post. As I said, have a look at the relevant journals (even if its just looking at the abstracts) and you'll get a good idea of the irrelevance of the data abuse that you've adopted. Note the methodologies employed and work out whey they are needed. You don't need to be an econometrician to do that; just requires some basic reading skills
     
  19. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fail Always fail.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Repetition in emptiness? Crikey! Get back to me when you can respond with mature remark. Cheers!
     
  21. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fail Always fail.
     
  22. greatgeezer

    greatgeezer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Reiver, you always refer to others data or papers. I will note here that you seem to have no actual experience or data of your own. You sound like a wonderfully gifted plagiarist, as well as one who can affect an educated appearance without any actual real world experience. I referred to my actual, hands on, first hand, experience in this area. Your charge of "tabloidism" and references to "lizard people" is something that a person does when they are on the verge of being unmasked as a pseudo-intellectual. Good try tho........
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An empirical based approach must be taken on this topic. Its through that which we can avoid bias and refer directly to gun effects.

    Wrong. I'm from a gun owning background. Folk use tabloidism to hide from reality (because that's what evidence describes!).

    No, it neatly summarises the limitation in your approach. The lizard people conspiracy theorists also refer to tabloidism. Its a means to maintain an unsupportable position after all
     
  24. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Reiver you are bring a fool here. An empirical approach means your opinion of a data set or information that is presented. My empirical view may differ from yours. I have already shown you that you are wrong here.

    Simple data analyses is the best solution. There is no need for peer review of anything as long as the data sets are not contested. We can make our own conclusions from the data and numbers do not lie. There is only one conclusion looking at the numbers only.

    Gun control will reduce the homicide rate in some cases but the overall violent crime rate generally remains the same with normal fluctuation. Why? Substitution of knives for guns. Still just as much crime with a little less death. And yes it moves from the guns to the knives.
     
  25. GeneralZod

    GeneralZod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gun control is a good idea, i have always believed this and from reading these forums, not likely to change my mind.

    To be clear though, in cities and urban centers. If people own land and want to hunt, then fair enough. But i dont see the point of owning firearms in urban sprawls, where the slightest argument could result in bullet death.

    Btw, i have no idea on the data either.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page