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
    I suppose you could just ignore the evidence! You fellows seem content with that approach
     
  2. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We were wondering...?
     
  3. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What evidence have you provided that we can see? Your word?
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He found a study that backs up his bias and also says that the previous studies that found evidence otherwise were wrong. In other words, he read it on the internetz. And of course he is right, because he says he is.
     
  5. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or studies that no one has access to.

    Or, more amusing, I can show him a series of links demonstrating that countries with strict gun control have higher suicide rates than the US..... but guns still increase suicide rates. LOL
    A contradiction of sorts. A contradiction that is resolved by a study that no one has access to. LOL Unfalsifiable claims are fun.
     
  6. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well actually I have seen some of the items he references and you can plug in certain variables and reach the conclusions he has. His information is correct but it does not pertain to this.

    His sources could take the same information the studies that I have presented do (data only) and reach a completely different conclusion depending on what variables are introduced. I trust government studies the best because most have nothing to gain by telling you that the gun ban did not work and you are not as safe as you were when your neighbor had a gun.

    Most of his studies I believe look at the economic impact of Guns and do not consider the variable of higher crime rates on a society (I pointed this out in another post).

    So I say every gunshot trial costs an average of $.5M and by removing the guns and it holds true that there are less trials involving guns because they were removed I can conclusively say that from the empirical evidence that taking guns off the streets saves money.

    Above completely ignored the 70% increase of $.4M trials that do not involve a guns; they were never considered. There is a direct correlation between gun ownership being higher and crime rates being lower across demographics and populations in the civilized western style nations that have a real secular government..
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong. Its standard, for example, to test for omitted variable bias. To get through the peer review process its also very common to provide numerous econometric tests of robustness.

    You refer to raw data as you can pick and choose data that fits your bias. It is an unscientific approach that only describes either an innocence or a hatred of the scientific process.

    Wrong again! They use econometric methodologies but that isn't economic specific. Your attempts at critique have been woeful
     
  8. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Reiver; I have posted the summary, conclusions, abstracts and data as well as linking to all of them. I have seen absolutely no data that counters my points or the posted studied (I would have posted that as well because that is the kind of MAN I am). Unlike you I look for and accept facts. You can disprove nothing I have posted either emphatically or with other data sets. You have chosen to partake in a fools errand and have shown that you do it well. Bring forth your information for all to see lest you be the beast of ridicule. You wont because that is the type of male you are; male not MAN.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't think of one empirical study that you've referenced. You've always gone for general reports and raw data, both incapable of testing hypothesis. As I've told you, you haven't even joined the debate yet
     
  10. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course not,according to YOU
     
  11. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no debate. It is one sided as always with you. Constantly pulling things out of your ass does not count as debate. It is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). All you have to do is present information for all to see; nothing more. You have presented nothing empirical or otherwise. You fail as always simply because you got nothing.

    Please present your evidence in a way that all can see. Are you scared? Are you a coward?
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course there is. Whilst we know without doubt that the 'more guns=more crime' cannot be rejected, there are still question marks over the impact of specific gun control measures. In your bid to hide from the evidence in order to maintain your dogma you just aren't part of it. You instead waste your time peddling unscientific conclusion based on obvious abuse of raw data.
     
  13. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will ask you one more time and one more time only in front of this forum and the greater viewership of the lurkers.

    Present either study's with citations or links that can be seen and read by all who wish or you fail by default.

    Can you do this? You reject everything and present nothing. You are a troll and a failing one at that.

    No excuses no nothing put up or ****.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I refer to ALL of the evidence. You want to pick and choose. That isn't consistent with objectivity. However, consider this one

    I've already predicted your response mind you!
     
  15. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

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

    I do not disagree with this although the study was to broad to introduce national demographic variables.

    Now dealing with just the red.

    I have posted information that shows a lack of guns in some places (AU) correlates increased crime rate.

    Do note that I counter this with government studies.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pardon? It refer to 200 counties in a panel context. You could I suppose attempt to refer to the analysis into crime convergence (i.e. the distinction between local variables and some general national characteristic that all state and country level will tend to converge to). However, that would be more suited to a cross-sectional analysis that cannot make a distinction between time variant and time invariant factors.

    You haven't referred to an empirical study that correctly controls for other variables used in criminology

    You haven't referred to any empirical study on a par with what I've referenced. You've gone for general information and raw data which, as I've repeatedly told you, is incapable of testing gun effects. Without using appropriate empirical methodology there is too much noise to make any reference to correlation
     
  17. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "In sum, gun prevalence is positively associated with overall homicide rates but not systematically related to assault or other types of crime. Together, these results suggest that an increase in gun prevalence causes an intensification of criminal violence—a shift toward greater lethality, and hence greater harm to the community."

    If I'm reading this correctly, doesn't this disprove the "more guns = more crime" hypothesis?
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. It means that guns impact on certain crimes, but with the overall result consistent with the hypothesis. Its not possible, however, to suggest that its simply a substitution between crimes (i.e. we can't say that, as gun prevalence increases, there is simply a shift away from assault to homicide)
     
  19. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What crimes would guns have an impact on?
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The evidence points to several areas: homicide (obviously), but also the likes of burglary (given guns are a valuable loot and therefore can encourage that type of crime) and numerous crimes associated with youngsters (given gun owning households are found to be more likely to have law-breaking juveniles)
     
  21. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well the numbers do not support this. Burglary, rape and assault are up. Sometimes having a gun can prevent you from acting because you know you will use it. No gum means fight and stab.
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You continue to be make very basic error. You cannot look at the raw data and make any evaluation. All other variables are "variable". Clue is in the name!
     
  24. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48


    {{{"""It refer to 200 counties in a panel context"""}}}

    Different countries, different customs, different reactions to things. I have over 2 dozon firearms and to date Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my weapons have. I have been handling firearms for over 59 years, Reiv, how long have you been handling them?? On top of everything else this thread is about gun related deaths in the U.S., not 200 other countries. The other countries don't count.
     
  25. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    {{{"""given guns are a valuable loot and therefore can encourage that type of crime"""}}}

    As I said once before, you REALLY want to go into a house where you know a gun lives and there just "might" be somebody home??? Ya, right!!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page