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
    You're not making sense here. The majority of the available empirical studies, reflecting the influence of US academia and the abundance of the data availability, is US specific. The evidence just doesn't support your dogma. You need to adapt!
     
  2. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Good. In the real world of human nature we have to many variables for you to sit there and tell us that there is nothing to be learned from looking at "RAW DATA" or long ranged data such as the crime rate in Asutralia. 5 years is enough data to give us a trend of what's happening, what's helping, and what's not. When you go into your egg headed nonsense it is laughable.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You demand tabloidism because of complexity. In reality (and reality isn't your friend here my ole china), its that complexity that ensures the need for empirical analysis rather than spurious spurt. You're attacking yourself without realising it
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In 2010, an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 6.0 percent from the 2009 estimate.

    [​IMG]

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

    You can thank Obama for the recent increase. The best gun salesman of the year.

    [​IMG]

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're using raw data blindly. Thought involves following the empirical process!
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think statistics outweigh raw data? Statistics show probability, raw data shows facts.

    Three kinds of lies.

    Lies
    (*)(*)(*)(*)ed Lies
    and Statistics
     
  7. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thar is the issue. Economists have caused too many problems. OOPs got that wrong. Well that is just new data for next rime when I get it wrong.
     
  8. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ask two economists a question, and you'll get three different answers! :nod:

    (This is #558 - I can't believe we're this far past the shut-down point!)
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fact, gun ownership is at least steady in the US.

    Fact, unless the population were static, gun ownership would stay the same, but since the population increases and gun ownership has stayed the same, the number of guns has increased.

    Fact, Violent crime has decreased.

    Now, to believe what some want you to believe, that "more guns = more violent crime", you would have to completely ignore evidence and only believe an "empiracal process" using statistics that proves the opposite of the facts.

    In other words, facts are meaningless to believe this. In real world terms, that would be like landing on the moon and discovering it was not made of green cheese, but not believing that was possible because an "empiracal process" using statistics proves that it is still made of green cheese.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've put your foot in it again. The cliché will typically refer to raw data, given basic statistical analysis will lead to spurious conclusion. Its imperative that empirical bias is monitored, ensuring properly conducted hypothesis testing.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Blah, blah, blah for ignore the facts, listen to the two men in the white lab coats.
     
  12. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sorry Reiv, I'll stick with the raw data because you have shown nothing to prove your hypothesis at this point.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That will only ensure a complete inability to support your argument. I know that's a quite popular outcome amongst you fellows, but try to break the tradition!
     
  14. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, I just want a straight answer with none of the trimings.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should be asking for a 'non-biased' answer
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The idea some want to push is that "more guns=more violence" which has not been proven yet and the "raw facts" disprove.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Raw data cannot prove or disprove. It can only be used within an empirical methodology that can reject or fail to reject. Basic stats!
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In other words, no one has proved "more guns=more crime".
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The hypothesis cannot be rejected. Please learn some basic stats
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The hypothesis cannot be rejected, nor can the hypothesis "more guns=less crime".
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't know what you're typing do you?
     
  22. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From About.com --

    "More guns = more crime" is a hypothesis, a "speculative guess" that has never been tested.
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unless you are blind, you should be able to understand the sentence.

    I agree, the hypothesis, "more guns=more crime" cannot be dismissed, but neither can the hypothesis "more guns=less crime". Both are assumptions.
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and, as shown by any properly conducted literature review, it cannot be rejected. This is despite using diverse empirical methodologies, data and tests for robustness.
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It cannot be rejected because it has not been disproved, or proved for that matter.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page