American Gun myth no 1. Guns for home/self defence

Your approach to run away from approved sample methods and renormalization of boundry conditions shows you really have no idea what your talking about.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-burglars-shot-was-plagued-by-break-ins.html

No doubt about it, they were burglars. Farmers robbed several times. No police. Only in gun control la la la land people can not tell the difference between good people and criminals.

 

Im impressed with how much like creationists they are, without actually being creaos.

 

Still you persist with your pseudo-science, your skewed data on gun control, and your unprovable theory that: more guns = more chance you will be a victim.

Crime rate is most closely related to ethnicity, NOT number of guns in a house---as anyone who has looked (honestly) at all the crime data.

As a psuedo-scientist/economist (ie liberal socialist) you refuse to consider FBI and other crime data that looks at the big picture. Making up one's mind on an issue only if the information has been published by other narrow-minded, agenda-driven liberals in their own journals is laughable.

Let's take your big lie that more guns in a given area causes more crime:

Here is state comparison for gun owneship rates in the US: The darker the more guns....



Here is a state comparison for violent crime rates (2004); The darker the more likely to be a victim of violence.



If you look at the states in the upper Midwest and West, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho...the states with the most guns per person, they all have about the lowest incidence of violent crime. If you were honest and believed in the scientific method, you would not take an absoultely false and unprovable theory like "more guns = more crime" seriously.

All of the top 10 Most Dangerous Cities in the US have all these things in common: 1) A liberal Democrat as mayor who is supported by.... 2) Large ethnic enclaves of the same group that lives in the most violent areas that....3) all have an "it's not my fault attitude" that causes them to have very low conviction rates and therefore the large numbers of unpunished felons doing the crimes.

 

Still I persist with the use of primary research, utilising sound literature review methods capable of referring to data problems, empirical bias and econometric flaws. The childish reaction of the pro-gunners, starved of using scientific research, doesn't interest me. I certainly won't be entertaining racism.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/jennifer-orey-shot-by-deputy-_n_1819271.html

It turned out OK. No police or criminals were harmed. Police tell victim, 'stop complaining you were only shot in the arm and stop faking pictures of a bullet hole in your chest'.

 

I remember from my history how the religious power elite held to the belief that the earth was flat. Those who used science and reason prove otherwise were demonzied.

BTW can you explain why violent crime is so low in gun infested areas like Wyoming when your studies say this can not be? I even used one of my maps from your Harvard gun grabbers---so did I not provide "sound literature review methods? I also remeber many of your reports including racial data---so who is the rasict here?

 

That is a myth. You haven't been taught well

 

Reiver is deaf, dumb, and blind to anything that resembles debate.

 

Another immature effort. You people are behaving like you're schoolyard bullies. Won't wash. I'm armed to the teeth with evidence and you're just coming across as tantrum-led

 

Your so-called analytical document ...........here's a few facts for the opposition.
1. It was written in 1999 and not published until 2002.
2. It was written by two authors whose connections and affiliations were dedicated to the Brady Campaign
3. Their work was sponsored by the Brady campaign
4 The information, which did not hold water, was pushed by Brady's wife as an agenda for seizing guns.
Your information is sadly outdated and is no longer touted as the accurate model.
Your document was paid for by anti-gunners. Can we say biased? Besides being outdated, the information is just as inaccurate today as it was then.
Biased opinions are not empirical evidence. They are a lie touted as the truth. No wonder you've been working so hard on shoving this down our throats. You want us to believe the lie as well.

so much for your evidence.........short on truth long on suppostition and extremely outdated
You should really check the history of the document as well

 

You really should stop deliberately fibbing about my position. I don't have a single analytical document and you won't be able to reference any such beast. I utility literature review methods and therefore refer to dozens of articles. Basic sense! In contrast, you and the homogeneous crew cannot apparently refer to any of the evidence. Sort that out!

 

Ok folks, you heard it here. He is not quoting any impirical evidence.
WTF is this? I utility literature review
"Sort that out" That's the problem with lying. You cannot sort out your own lies and now you want us to do so...
Mr ancient? ....go away

 

"Armed to the teeth with evidence?" I had a simple request, go back to post #354 and look at the two maps, then using your "piles" of evidence, explain why your theory "more guns = more crime" does not fit into reality. Many of your biased studies you promote use suicide data to deliberatly confound data, but your theory said "more gune = more CRIME, and suicides are not honestly considered crimes.

Looking at the two maps, even a simple person can see that the exact opposite of what you say is going on: the states with the most guns per household almost always have the lowest rates of violent crime. Again, not as a bully, tell me how these two maps are wrong.

Finally, do you think your theory that being in a house or area with high numbers of guns is going to make you more likely to be a victim of crime, will keep more people safe who take this information seriously? Or, do you think, my theory (that of common wisdom) that staying away from dangerous high crime areas, and genrally living in an area with high percentages of legal gun ownership will keep more people safe?

 

Reiver is incapable of debating you on this. Evidently pomposity is a debate technique to him.

 

The use of raw data is only going to be helpful when trying to do something terribly specific. We may be interested, for example, in looking for a structural break. Alternatively, we may have such a simple relationship that searching for simple corrleations is sufficient. Here, we know that there are multiple factors tha impact on crime. Gun prevalence, almost certainly, will not be the biggest factor (or anywhere near). We therefore must attempt to ensure 'ceteris paribus' and control for non-gun effects. Calling studies that complete this slice of obviousness biased (to try and justify use of ridiculous raw data comparisons) is ar from cunning!

My theory? No, theory to empirically test hypothesis such that data minimg is avoided. That analysis is based on objective study of gun control. It has no bearing on my gun preference decision. I can only describe the evidence and its inconsistency with the cultist grunt

 

Blah blah blah ...cultist grunt... blah blah blah.

You get the picture.

 

Arguably one of your most advanced arguments on this sub-forum. Well done!

 

Over and over again in many posts, you tell us that "More guns = more crime." That in inself is terribly specific. This theory is the product of a political agenda to frame guns as the cause of crime instead of all the human elements that contribute to it. All of your 50 cent words can't hide the fact that you, your theories and your gun control apologists can't prove your point and do nothing to disprove the direct evidence I have given.

Based on the all these studies you talk so highly of, rate, in YOUR opinion why crime (not including suicides) is high in a given area. List in order of importance with #1 being the most important.

Prevalence of guns per household.

Types of weapons available (handguns, semi-autos, single shots, etc.)

Ethnicity

Conviction Rate and severity of punishment for convicts

Poverty, Income levels

Amount of goverment assisstance (welfare) per individual

Single parent families

Age

Education level

Political system governing area

Other factors

If this questiion is beyond your abilities to answer, just say so.

 

Over the over again I refer to a simple fact: a literature review confirms that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. You'd know the truth in that if you had bothered to peruse the evidence. The pro-gunners are typically ignorant of the evidence and also ignorant of the empirical process. Not always of course. Once in a blue moon you mind one who has had the good sense to at least read some of the primary research.

I'm not part of any political agenda. Objectivity is key. I've simply bothered to adopt an evidence-based approach

I will always argue, given the nature of the evidence, that economic variable is the most important determinant of crime. Does that matter for comment on rational gun control? Not in the least

 

Ok folks, you heard it here. He is not quoting any impirical evidence.
WTF is this? I utility literature review
"Sort that out" That's the problem with lying. You cannot sort out your own lies and now you want us to do so...


your data is 20 years old.............pffffffffffffft what's to argue about there?

 

This is more nonsense. I refer to dozens of studies using numerous data sets (and including cross sectional and time series approaches), encompassing a diverse use of time periods. Your constant fibbing won't work

 

Which is why I like the Harvard Analysis

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/overall/index.html

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics-Guns-and-Wishful-Thinking

And you talk of This theory is the product of a political agenda to frame guns as the cause of crime instead of all the human elements that contribute to it. Why is not the converse also true

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...Rights-Guaranteed-By-Corporations?showAll=yes

 

You either lied then or you are lying now:
"You really should stop deliberately fibbing about my position. I don't have a single analytical document and you won't be able to reference any such beast." #363, this thread, your words......

 

You know I like to find out where people are sourcing their stats from - particularly if it is an image because said image may have come from a site like "Smith and Western 20 reasons YOU should have a gun in your home!"

So, since there is no link I did a Google image search and came up with this as an answer

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/social-health-hazards/spr08gunprevalence/index.html

My favourite site to quote for gun statistics - only when I looked they were using the image to show the, albeit loose, correlation between gun ownership and suicide data years 2002

Actually the top ten matches for this map were all maps of republican voting states LOLS!!


this was the best match and it is 2004 statistics off of Wiki

And I will also need to point out that "Correlation does not equal causation