Stephen Paddock - Legally Purchased 33 Rifles in one Year

Nonsense.
The fact your right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution in no way means the state cannot limit the number of abortions you are allowed to have.

 

The human body due to scar tissue build up and other serious related health issues affects how many abortions it can endure, like any other surgical procedure, there are significant risks of embolism and post operative infection.

 

Oh yeah? Well...
The fact your right to go to church is protected by the Constitution in no way means the state cannot limit the number of times per month you go to church.

 

Very true,
Congress shall establish no laws regarding Religion.

Although the human body" my human body, does indeed have limits on the number of times, lol, bored to tears..... lol

 

are you serious? if the state cannot tell a first time gun buyer that he cannot buy a gun where does it get the power to tell a person buying gun for the 300th time he cannot? same with attending church service. are you playing devil's advocate or just bored?

 

The moderators must have stripped the sarcasm from my post.

 

I guess so. that's why I asked.

 

Depends on the study of course. We've seen analysis into specifics, such as burglary rates. However, homicide is the standard

Why do you fellows struggle so much with hypothesis testing? Its basic stuff after all.

 

I fully understand the process, I have used it many times as a tool in a range of activities, including a quick determination of whether a hypothesis has any merit to pursue for testing further or if one can be quicley dismissed, for attempting to isolate relevant indicator variables, and for assistance in a better formulated hypothesis with tests for nullification, but I have never accepted the results of regression analysis as a ‘proof of a hypothesis’. The simple formula more guns = more crime fails a simple test, massive numbers of guns have been added to the US civilian inventory over the last decade by nearly 50% and violent crime has decreased by nearly the same percentage. The numbers don’t support that simple formula. If they did, we’d be able to develop formula that predicts for x increase or decrease in guns there will be a corresponding increase or decrease in violent crime. No such relationship between variables has been found to exist. Therefore, the basic formula and hypothesis fails. Nor, has any such predictive relationship been found by any combination of variables such as poverty, income population density, various legislative controls.... None that can be independently tested showing consistent results. None. If there were, the 2005 and 2012 National studies, the most comprehensive to date, would have identified them; instead both studies were consistent with indicating inconclusive results when looking at the various remedies that have been studied. More guns = more crime, while attractive as a biased, agenda driven, formula as a hypothesis fails. That simple. Both studies were in further agreement, more study, more data is needed. Virtually all of the studies touting the conclusions favored by the left were known to the participants of the studies, including authors of many relevant studies like Hemenway, Lott, Kleck, and others. If anything, both studies lend some merit to those of Kleck.
I have a bias. You have a bias. To be funded, most studies are tainted with funding bias, including those from Harvard...something not that difficult to ferret.
We haven’t isolated the potential indicator variables that can be used for establishing reliable measures that would be useful in building a mode of understanding even to devise a means of identifying the additional data colllection that would help in analysis. But that doesn’t stop those from the misuse, the deception, and dishonesty in trying to characterize such studies as a definitive and factual basis for developing anything more than crap shoot public, let’s do it and see, public policy. To subvert the provisions and rights acknowledged in the Constitution, provisions and rights the majority of American’s support, I suggest, first to meet a very high standard, and second, be that which will convince the majority

 

You start with ignorance mind you. A hypothesis is never accepted, we reject or we fail to reject.

I can stop you here. No one refers to a simple formula. Criminology naturally refers to multiple factors impacting on crime. That you'd even suggest otherwise only tells me that you are actually clueless over the hypothesis testing process. Sorry!

This is drivel. The hypothesis cannot be rejected. Any objective review of the econometric evidence would confirm that.

This amused me. More data is always preferable. However, there is simply no way of assuming rejection of the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. This is made even more clear with the evidence finding significant effects from gun control.

Actually I don't. Thanks for confirming your bias mind you.

This is nonsense. Studies, to get published, have to refer to any funding. Most aren't. The costs from this type of research, except in terms of expert time, tend to zero.

Sorry, but this is also guff. Very easy to test, for example, for omitted variable bias. Always happy to hear a pro-gunner refer to robustness tests mind you! That's a very rare circumstance!

This is the real meat to your post. Its a call to ignore evidence, nothing more.

 

No, it’s two parts, none of which is to ignore the evidence.

When I was first delivering paper of my studies to my peers, most acknowledged leaders in my field at the time, my mentor said “your work is good. But, it challenges convention, so you will be attacked by the experts, who rely on their reputation for the perks their reputations provide. Then he asked, “do you know what an expert is? I replied, “someone that know more than me. “ He said, “No, it’s someone that will use words you don’t know, someone that will attempt to dazzle and thereby try to shut you up. Don’t try to be an expert. Be a teacher, a good teacher will try to explain so others understand and like all good teachers, one of the objectives is to learn from students’.” I never forgot that...one element of a model I have worked on for forty years in my field was derived from a revelation resulting from a simple question from a 12 year old girl when I found myself drifting into being an expert.

 

A twelve year old girl is oftentimes, wiser than most men, myself included.