Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    His Ignorance is out of balance with his Arrogance. There is a math equation for that, 10/0 which means undefined. He is incapable of defining his views because they are ethereal delusions.

    By this I mean he invents his data set pulling it from the ethereal plain and the in his delusional state applies quasi mathematical equations that HE THINKS HE MAY HAVE HEARD OF to reach a conclusion that can not be backed up.

    Ethereal Delusions
    http://www.shewrites.com/profiles/blogs/ethereal-delusions-poem?xg_source=activity
     
  2. Thinker

    Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    761
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He just keeps refusing everything we say, he keeps repeating himself.
     
  3. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is because his ethereal empirical evidence means more than actual studies that are backed up by data.

    Nobody is denying that the total homicide rate is affected as far as gun violence is concerned but knife violence has gone up.

    Hell the UK is much more dangerous than the US. They have few guns to protect them. Honestly guns are like nukes. If your enemy may have one you think twice before attacking him.
     
  4. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    actually, the evidence finds the exact opposite. overall death rates are not reduced.
     
  5. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    His ethereal empirical evidence is better than what actual studies show. He pulls his data set out of his ass and out of the ether..
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A quick review of this sub forum will show that I refer to the published evidence the most: numerous articles testing the gun/crime hypothesis (Cook and Ludwig, Duggan, Gius etc etc etc) and articles that test gun control effects directly (e.g. Kwon and Baack). Here, however, I've referenced directly an analysis into the Australian's buyback scheme. That you haven't noticed that I adopt an evidence-based approach (which of course, given how hypothesis testing works, ensures also an appreciation of criminology theory in order to avoid 'data mining') only suggests that your ideological leads to a result that isn't friendly to observation. Join the herd!
     
  7. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Homicide

    Government study but you will say it means nothing because your opinion means more. Arrogance; the brain killer!
     
    Trinnity and (deleted member) like this.
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post is an exercise in irrelevance; the only issue is whether you already realise that. We know that there are numerous factors that impact on homicide rates. That provokes numerous debates, such as Ehrlich's analysis into deterrence effects and whether 'crimes of passion' can be included (given the assumption of rational economic man must necessarily be maintained). However, for this thread we have something simple: isolate gun effects and we have (1) Gun prevalence is positively related to social costs (i.e. by isolating gun effects, the hypothesis 'more guns=more crime' is supported); (2) Gun control, other things equal, is found to reduce death rates
     
  9. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/401-420/tandi417.aspx
     
  10. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    (*)(*)(*)(*) you. The information does not fit your view so you dismiss it.

    You fail
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I merely have bothered with the evidence. Once you do that discounting simple errors like rant based on spurious relationship really isn't taxing. Of course the more pertinent remarks are over, for example, acknowledgement of the empirical flaws in Lott's work. One just can't foot stamp and have a tantrum though (we're leave that to the herd who religiously follow and share your ideology). One can objectively reject based on a clear lack of robustness.
     
  12. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FAIL MAN. Link me a counter or do the work yourself citing your sources.

    So put up or ****
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Counter? You haven't said anything relevant. You'd need, for example, to refer to a study that directly tests gun and knife substitution effects. We both know that you can't. You only have spurious relationship grunt
     
  14. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you stop pulling (*)(*)(*)(*) covered lies out of your ass I might try to discuss this with your dumb ass. You run you ignorant mouth and go in pointless circles with ignorant rants about how you presented this or that.

    Now counter what I have posted. Studies have shown that as guns go out, knives come into play more. Show me some hard data refuting this and not empirical BS you pull out of your ass.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll go through it again for you, real slow like: There is nothing (nil, zilch, fanny adams) to counter. You've give a tedious reference to spurious relationship. There's no excuse for it either as I've already educated you fellows over what you need to do: refer to evidence that shows substitution effects. Can you? Can you achieve relevancy?

    Reference one!
     
  16. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where are your links? Fail.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Links to what? Make sense (I've just acknowledged your whole prance is driven by low brow spurious relationship)! Start by referencing these studies that "have shown that as guns go out, knives come into play more". By making stuff up you do show yourself up!
     
  18. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And I have proven to the entire forum that you pull information out of your ass and shove your head back up.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Calm down now and be a good chap: Provide one study that has "shown that as guns go out, knives come into play more". Just one! Easy task surely?
     
  20. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Read the thread man. Good God.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have two problems here. First, you don't understand what's required to support the "as guns go out, knives come into play more" hypothesis. You'd need, as I've pointed out several times, a study that tests for substitution effects. Second, no such study exists so you've made a very foolish comment.

    I expect you to use the former to dodge the latter!
     
  22. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you have the feeling that you are being sucked into what I call "The Reiver Vortex"?
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just simple objective application and understanding of the evidence. Easy stuff
     
  24. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nahhh he is a moron and holds no credibility here he just likes to screw with people. I could always put him on ignore but he is kind of like the mentally ill village idiot around here. When he makes a post all I can think of is "Bobby make brown" You know the kid who craps his pants.
     
  25. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Glad to see you understand what we're dealing with.

    I must admit, the constant dodging of questions, the continual posting of studies that have minimal bearing on the issue (not to mention that they often cost $$ to read), plus the continuous dismissal of anything that contradicts the "accepted" studies does tend to get aggravating at times.

    There's a saying that I believe to be Reiver's M.O. - "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...".

    :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page