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
    Again you show your 'innocence' (being polite there). We don't accept, we fail to reject.
     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We? You have a mouse in your pocket?

    Who is we?

    What don't you accept?

    What do you fail to reject?
     
  3. Trinnity

    Trinnity Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    10,645
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is this thread still open at almost 600 posts????
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone that knows stats

    We don't use the vocab as we're referring to the use of statistical testing, with an error structure.

    The gun hypothesis obviously! Go and teach yourself the basics. Off you pop!
     
  5. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to start making sense.

    Now you are saying you reject the gun hypothesis you espouse, "more guns=more crime"? If not that, then how can you reject "more guns=less crime"? Both unproven assumptions?

    You either accept or reject both as they are on equal footing.

    So far the only thing you have proven is your anti-gun bias. Do you accept you have an anti-gun bias? If not, when did you give it up?
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've never stopped. The problem is that your understanding of stats is approaching zero, ensuring that you don't understand the basics

    Catch up! We cannot accept hypothesis (that's poor form!), we either reject or fail to reject. The 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. Its a simple conclusion
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like I said, neither can "more guns=less crime". It's a simple conclusion.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You again make no sense. As I said, you need to teach yourself some basics and you wouldn't be coming out with this erroneous stuff
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Shall I speak slower for you?

    Your hypothesis, "more guns=more crime", is as valid as "more guns=less crime". Both unproven.

    Try to keep up.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just some sense will do. Learn from your errors!

    Hogwash! The 'more guns=less crime' hypothesis is rejected. Crikey, you really do need to be helped along don't you?
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. Your opinion is what you hold dear. Not facts. Not empirical process. Pure opinion.

    If you care for actual facts or the empirical process then you could prove that "more guns=less crime" is, in your emotionalism, "hogwash".
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You reply quite randomly again. I'm referring to the evidence. One piece of research stands out in support of the 'more guns=less crime' hypothesis. That comes from Lott. Its since been rejected as empirically biased. Did I reject it? Is it my opinion? No, its simply the result of an understanding of econometric bias and how, when that is eliminated, we're left with a simple fact: the 'more guns=more crime' cannot be rejected
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Forget Lott.

    If you rely on "evidence", then the fact that more guns have been sold over the last 10 years and crime has decreased during that time (see my link to FBI stats) should have some impact on you, but let's face it, that is not what you are interested in.

    Neither hypothesis can be rejected as both are unproven; though, the evidence is currently on the side of "more guns=less crime".

    If you reject that hypothesis then it is due only to blind adherence to your own bias. I, on the other hand, do not reject either hypothesis.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed! Leaving your previous comment unsupportable.

    Its quite common for the empirical research to use FBI data. You just don't understand the need for an empirical methodology to avoid empirical bias. There's no excuse for that as its not a difficult concept to understand

    You can't say anything on this topic as you are completely unaware of the evidence and how statistical analysis operates.
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    LOL, whaterever mister Reiver. You have shown yourself quite incapable of keeping an open mind on the issue and resort to one study, while ignoring all others, which shows only your narrow and biased reasoning. To prove you are correct, you resort to name calling, studies that I have not even presented, and have shown a complete ignorance of facts.

    You present your "hypothesis" as the only hypothesis, which flies in the face of fact finding and scientific study to begin with. If you think that one study is the end all and be all of fact, then you will be sorely disappointed with your future.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another random reply. We both know that you cannot refer to anything to support your position. In contrast, I've actually bothered to review the literature.

    More randomness! There are of course other hypothesis (e.g. 'gun control reduces death rates'). You won't like the findings there though!
     
  17. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because we rawk! [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you even understand what random means? I think not. Just a poor pathetic attempt to deflect from your biased reasoning.
     
  19. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And we're using descriptive statistics when we look at the AIC report, the Dept. of Justice data, the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

    That data allows us to create a statistical inference, which you constantly fail to accept because it contradicts your "MG=MC" hypothesis.
     
  20. Jiyuu-Freedom

    Jiyuu-Freedom Keep the peace Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    16,174
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for all that participated in this thread. It has far exceeded the 500 post limit, therefore it is now closed.

    Jiyuu-Freedom
    Site Moderator
     
  21. submarinepainter

    submarinepainter Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    over 500 time for a new thread!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page