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
    Irrelevant question. The paper refers to how the legal and illegal markets are innately related

    A random question. Put some effort in it! Its a US study

    I did like this question. You're essentially calling Americans worthless. Its rare to see such open anti-Americanism. I salute you (but couldn't possibly agree)

    Again, not one relevant critique. You adopt a splatter gun to this whole topic. Copying and pasting without thought, claiming things are studies on gun control when they aren't and making up ludicrous questions to blag at least 'some' thought.
     
  2. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They are not.

    :sunnysideup: on my face. I misread it. Counties not countries.

    Host members of the Human race are worthless and it is by choice.

    You answered one question. Now that you set me strait on the county thing it makes it more biased.

    So lets get to it; then what demographic. What was the socioeconomic makeup of the counties? Were the chosen by size or populous?
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The results show otherwise

    It was a neat example of how you aren't bothering with properly conducted critique

    How many of the pro-gunners do you think are actually fascists?

    Get it right. It dismissed all questions as low brow

    The details of the data are available in the paper. Perhaps it might be a good idea for you to read it? Perhaps then you wouldn't make ludicrous claims over what the authors are investigating...
     
  4. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My information differs from yours in the respect that it is just numbers and no manipulation.


    Why should I when you don't bother with cognitive thought.


    What the (*)(*)(*)(*) does that have to do with anything?

    You were incapable of answering anything else.

    You answer it.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've got spurious relationship that you like as it fits your dogma. I'm referring to the paper's results. You just haven't understood them (perhaps not surprising as you made that "country" desperate error and gave the game away)

    Now try and actually come out with a valid critique of the paper! Can't you at least try and google one so we can pretend you've read it and understood it?
     
  6. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And your study makes a helluva lot of assumptions. The difference is two fold.

    The data we look at is looking at the big picture. There is much more at play than guns.

    From the sociological perspective people are the issue. Social deviance.

    From a psychological view people are also the issue not guns.

    I will give you one thing. Guns make it easier to kill someone.
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are funny, Sad, but funny. Still clinging to the belief that the one paper you proffered is the end all and be all of the situation disregarding all the other studies?
     
  8. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Plain and simple it is the right of human beings to bear arms. Criminals will do it regardless, so we might as well also.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One paper? Please don't come out with such ridiculous comments. I've reviewed all of the evidence, from Lott's empirically biased paper to the latest analysis such as Gius's Applied Economic Letters piece. In contrast, you can't refer to just ONE empirical study. Want to put that right?
     
  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 here. What assumptions does it make and present evidence to show that they lead to empirical bias?
     
  11. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Assumptions are made and then study are made to prove them.

    http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
    There are a couple more.

    So were assumptions made of were assumptions proved? Like I said the value of many lives is a societal negative.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Woeful attempt that again only shows your innocence. You have to show that the assumptions lead to empirical bias. You have to show that the conclusions aren't robust. You won't be able to manage that
     
  13. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am saying that 1M for the value of a random life, one that would be common in a scenario where they would be shot, is actually a negative value.

    I am saying that many murders save the tax payers money.

    The study is flawed.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html
     
  14. Thinker

    Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    761
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just want to throw this out there, yall keep repeating yourselfs without getting anywhere, maybe we should let the thread die.
     
  15. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It will in short order we are nearing 500. Until that time I must fight his lies and propaganda.
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You won't get anywhere. No matter the facts, a true believer has already made up his/her mind.
     
  17. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes but BS spewed and un-countered gets spread as truth by those who only read the final post. Gotta stay on top of the propaganda you know.
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately for those that cannot think for themselves will rely solely on some peer reviewed paper for their thinking. If it is something that has not been made into a peer reviewed paper, then for them, there is no evidence. Not even the weight of history and experience will make any sense to them.
     
  19. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I mean there is really nothing wrong with the paper Reiver presented but it is not the end all tell all and I do feel it is flawed.

    This paper drew some conclusions and though well done those conclusions are vary specific.

    Sure the paper was peer reviewed but it was not put up in front of the opposition for review. It was put in front of a group that would not look for the flaws.
     
  20. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I went to the local BassPro shop last night, and found myself (as usual) in the hunting section looking at pistols and ammunition. The clerk and I began talking about ammunition, and he tried to sell me some Winchester ammunition.

    I told him that I normally use Remington ammo, but would consider switching brands if he could provide me with some peer-reviewed studies containing empirical evidence which could conclusively demonstrate his contention that Winchester ammunition is as good as Remington.

    He came back with a sales brochure that showed the various powder loads, bullet weights, and bullet types, but I told him that the raw data was meaningless unless it had been properly reviewed, and shown to eliminate all the external variables.

    He called me crazy, to which I responded that he was biased and unable to provide me with conclusive data, therefore his contention was unsubstantiated by any actual proof.

    Guess I showed him, eh?

    BTW - I didn't buy the Winchester ammo, I bought a box of Speer instead.
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I pointed out an error in the paper's assumption and he, of course, poo pooed it.
     
  22. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now that's clever.
     

    Attached Files:

  23. FrankCapua

    FrankCapua Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,906
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    All time stupid post. The young woman's husband had died just a few weeks prior to the incident.

    Men with balls aren't tied to their women's apron strings 24/7.
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that evidence is inconsistent with the pro-gun rant and therefore, religiously, its ignored without thought. Encourage thinking!
     
  25. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem is that evidence is inconsistent with the anti-gun rant and therefore, religiously, its ignored without thought. Encourage thinking!

    The one study that is contradicted at every turn (his study) and Reiver ignoring everything else. I read his study and pointed out some things that he can not address.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page