Page 24 of 39 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 383
Thanks Tree72Thanks

Thread: Gun Control Cities - The Cause of High Murder Rates

  1. #231
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,380
    Thanks
    302

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Again we always expect variation in suicide rates as all other variables are changing. When gun effects are isolated, statistically significant effects are found. And, as I said, I've referred to a credible empirical study and you have not
    Actually each study you have provided is old and outdated and used data going as far back as 1961. There is no argument against your studies as they have no relevance in 2015.

  2. #232
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    Actually each study you have provided is old and outdated and used data going as far back as 1961. There is no argument against your studies as they have no relevance in 2015.
    An ignorant comment. Of course time series and panel data is used. That enables further discussion over the impact of changes in gun prevalence

  3. #233
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,380
    Thanks
    302

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    An ignorant comment. Of course time series and panel data is used. That enables further discussion over the impact of changes in gun prevalence
    Actually what you have done, and the method is rabidly employed by gun control advocates, is to start with the conclusion you need to make to support your worldview, then use outdated, irrelevant, and biased data to corroborate. It is nothing new or a methodology I haven't dealt with myriad times.

  4. #234
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    Actually what you have done, and the method is rabidly employed by gun control advocates, is to start with the conclusion you need to make to support your worldview, then use outdated, irrelevant, and biased data to corroborate. It is nothing new or a methodology I haven't dealt with myriad times.
    More drivel. I've merely referred to the empirical evidence. If you can't come out with a valid critique then please just say so. This childish blubbering routine is just dull

  5. #235
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,380
    Thanks
    302

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    More drivel. I've merely referred to the empirical evidence. If you can't come out with a valid critique then please just say so. This childish blubbering routine is just dull
    Outdated irrelevant data and studies is not empirical evidence. There is not a stronger valid critique than pointing out outdated data and studies. There is no other way to rebut 30+ year old data.

  6. #236
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    Outdated irrelevant data and studies is not empirical evidence. There is not a stronger valid critique than pointing out outdated data and studies. There is no other way to rebut 30+ year old data.
    You're just repeating your ignorance of the empirical process. Time series, cross sectional and panel techniques are used. You'd have to show some sort of structural brfeak in the data while ignoring the cross sectional methods. That twins impossibility with deliberate misinformation. Good luck with that

  7. #237
    Trumpaloompa Tormenter Cicero's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    36,825
    Thanks
    23802

    From
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    A study that finds significant increases in homicides isn't relevant? Chortle, chortle!
    Well yes and no. To the extent it lumps suicides and accidents in with intentional murders its methodology is questionable. Further, to the extent it ignores other factors, such as the percentage of the study population (involved in a homicide) who have a history of criminal activity, the conclusion is questionable. If guns are the cause, rather than the instrumentality, then the number of homicides (sans accidents and suicides) would be proportional (between the population with no criminal history and those with a criminal history.) That is, after all, the purpose of an empirical study...to rule out extraneous factors to arrive at a conclusion that is not tainted by bias.) Is this so? Did they even consider such factors?

  8. #238
    Trumpaloompa Tormenter Cicero's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    36,825
    Thanks
    23802

    From
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Irrelevant question, on a par with 'can an unlit cigarette give you cancer?'

    I've already mentioned that there is no reason to assume the gun owner is good or bad. They can be taken to be a rational consumer (a generous assumption mind you!). This is about how the gun market guarantees social costs (as we've seen with the secondary market and how it feeds additional crime)
    This is where your studies fall apart. There is, actually, a valid reason for determining whether the gun owner is good (lawful- no criminal history) or bad (unlawful- history of criminal activity). The specific reason for doing so speaks to the propensity of criminals to both recidivisim and escalation of offenses. In other words, people with a history of prior bad acts have a demonstrated propensity to re-offend (in the US, 716 out of 100000 criminals re-offend after incarceration.) https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/...Recidivism.pdf 52 Percent of Released Prisoners Return to Prison-67 Percent Rearrested http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc...lprisonpop.pdf

    More than 650,000 ex-offenders are released from prison (in the US) annually. That's 4,654 people (statistically) who will re-offend. 13% of this population are violent offenders (statistically- 605 people) 71% of violent offenders re-offend within five years (statistically- 430 people).


    If one controls for suicides, , accidents and repeat criminal offenders (in other words, considers them separately) what impact does that change have upon the rate of gun homicides? Does the rate remain proportional (constant) or does it not? If the rate remains constant, then one might argue that the guns are problematic. If the rate does not remain constant, then the rate of gun homicides is likely a collateral function of some other factor.

  9. #239
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    4,828
    Thanks
    1059

    From
    The Antipodes
    Quote Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
    This is where your studies fall apart. There is, actually, a valid reason for determining whether the gun owner is good (lawful- no criminal history) or bad (unlawful- history of criminal activity). The specific reason for doing so speaks to the propensity of criminals to both recidivisim and escalation of offenses. In other words, people with a history of prior bad acts have a demonstrated propensity to re-offend (in the US, 716 out of 100000 criminals re-offend after incarceration.) https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/...Recidivism.pdf 52 Percent of Released Prisoners Return to Prison-67 Percent Rearrested http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc...lprisonpop.pdf

    More than 650,000 ex-offenders are released from prison (in the US) annually. That's 4,654 people (statistically) who will re-offend. 13% of this population are violent offenders (statistically- 605 people) 71% of violent offenders re-offend within five years (statistically- 430 people).


    If one controls for suicides, , accidents and repeat criminal offenders (in other words, considers them separately) what impact does that change have upon the rate of gun homicides? Does the rate remain proportional (constant) or does it not? If the rate remains constant, then one might argue that the guns are problematic. If the rate does not remain constant, then the rate of gun homicides is likely a collateral function of some other factor.
    Gun law violations should mean somethin'.......

  10. #240
    Trumpaloompa Tormenter Cicero's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    36,825
    Thanks
    23802

    From
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony View Post
    Gun law violations should mean somethin'.......
    Indeed they should "mean something." What is undetermined is whether that "meaning" is statistically significant.
    None of the studies, referenced, appears to consider this fact and thus we simply don't know how such violations impact the results.

Page 24 of 39 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 3rd April 2015, 05:51 AM
  2. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 2nd August 2013, 03:27 PM
  3. Italy government borrowing rates hit euro-era high
    By michaelr in forum Europe & Russia
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15th November 2011, 06:11 AM
  4. US Hands Over Control of Iraqi Cities
    By Bourne in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30th June 2009, 01:52 AM
  5. Are interest rates still too high?
    By michaelr in forum Economics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st January 2009, 11:10 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed