Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

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

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

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your funny in some respects. Like the gun grabbers here the next thing we will hear is about children under 5 killing others with a gun that was left lying around. But the truth is, more children under 5 drown in buckets of water than from gun shots. Now, if you take the gang related deaths out of the "killed" by a firearm statistic and the number drops away down. And Reiv, gang members are STILL going to get guns regardless.

    As far as I'm concerned you acidemia types are the ones full of hot air.
     
  2. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

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

    Reiver Well-Known Member

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

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the heck is a 'acidemia type'? I merely adopt an evidence based approach. I don't have a dogmatic limitation that means science is necessarily rejected
     
  5. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey check this out:

    Total gunshot deaths in the US 2011 was 8,775.

    The estimated value of a life in your report Reiver was 1,000,000 so guns are profiting the US by well over 10,000,000,000 per year.

    And the value on those lives? My bet is in the truest sense it saved money having them dead. Lemme see here...

    Drugs and gangs and miscreants will account for quite a bit of the number killed.

    So letting the criminals kill each other saves money.
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basic error! The crime issue can be understood in terms of a supply-side failure; I.e. The marginal private and social costs do not coincide. This automatically creates a deadweight loss and therefore economic inefficiency.
     
  7. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have you taken much Psych and sociology? Anthropological studies as well.

    http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/fil...ial Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance.pdf

    https://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/lemert.htm

    When you finish these we can talk. You are thinking inside the box. Money has little effect on deviant behavior and as much as much as you want it to it never will.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To test crime effects one requires econometric analysis. Your copying and pasting to avoid that literature isn't interesting
     
  9. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

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

    http://www.econturk.org/Turkiyeekonomisi/erdal1.pdf

    http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/What_Causes_Crime.pdf
    Do notice World Bank so the study is purpose driven and a prejudice of certain conclusions is to be expected.

    http://www.popcenter.umd.edu/criminologyandeconomics/literature/Criminal Economists.pdf

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-218.html

    Every study has an agenda. Your study did as well.
     
  10. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You read nothing and you are a damed fool. Economics is not the sole cause and income has gone up and crime still happens. The US is in a down cycle with high unemployment yet our crime rate is down. That does not fit your BS.

    I presented empirical studies and now I am avoiding literature? You are avoiding the truth.
     
  11. Bondo

    Bondo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,768
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ayuh,.... Neither are yer Agenda driven "Studies"....
     
  12. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Heathen! Heretic! Econometrics is the one and only true religion, all other disciplines are teachings from a false prophet!

    Haven't you infidels learned that by now?

    ;)
     
  13. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is interesting:

    To qualify this here is the author.
    Economics needs to become less enamored with proofs and more enamored with realism.

    http://economics.about.com/od/whatiseconomics/a/reformeconomics.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Moffatt

    And to qualify myself (and show that I am a pack rat) I never get rid of school books.
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

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

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neither interesting or imaginative. You're merely having a tantrum as you cannot dispute the need to utilise hypothesis testing methods. You're merely having a tantrum as these studies correctly isolate gun effects and also allow for numerous robustness tests to ensure empirical bias can be quantified and dismissed. Its all just a little too predictable!
     
  16. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No Reiver it is you and your one track mind that are the issue. It is people trying to make humans into mathematical models and use their actions as variables that is the issue. Economists are wrong all the time because of the one factor they can not account for. The human.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Following an evidence-based approach is just rational

    This only shows that you don't know what you're talking about. There has been no reference to mathematical models, except in your unimaginative dodge from your inability to defend your position with valid evidence. There has only been reference to the need to use empirical methodologies capable of isolating gun effects. That isn't economics specific.
     
  18. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You evidently have no idea how studies are carried out.

    So you are an illiterate fool by your own reckoning.

    Reiver you have failed big time.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do. Econometrics isn't that difficult to understand. The best you can go for is a difference between parametric and non-parametric tests (e.g. stochastic frontier versus DEA). However, you've simply been blinded by a warped understanding of economics (even though we're not actually referring to economic models, which typically are used to justify the specification and therefore eliminate the threat of data mining)

    You're still peddling sweet FA
     
  20. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice side step. You have failed and it is here for all to see there are no take backs because you have lost.

    Your empirical study was based off of mathematical models that used humans as variables. You denied it so that evidently means I know more about your study than you do.

    FAIL
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simple knowledge which you should already know. Your blag isn't of a particularly high quality.

    Nonsense again. The empirical study uses numerous variables to investigate whether a gun hypothesis can be rejected. Don't like the results? Well boo hoo!
     
  22. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you are calling yourself a liar?

    Well on that we agree; You are full of 5hìt.

    Also something about this just does not seem right:

     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I'm saying you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You've confused yourself between mathematical models (typically used in theoretical analysis where data is not available) and statistics.

    Correct! It isn't right. Simple knowledge that you really should have grasped
     
  24. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I have no and why so huffy puffy? You are having a tantrum like a little girl. Can you not face the fact that you are wrong?

    Here is :sunnysideup: on your face. No matter what you say or do from this point on you can not make a come back. Well you can. Work with people instead of showing your ass.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still no content. You've made an error, just accept it. Given you don't understand the methodologies employed, you've gone off on one. I can understand that; you haven't any experience in using the evidence. Fair enough! However, learn from your error and please don't go back to that desperately naive raw data abuse
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page