Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

Do I need to talk slower? This thread is about "more guns = more crime". You cannot have a valid study about gun ownership without gun ownership data.

FTA:

Valid proxy? Again, no data, just guesswork.

You have already argued against some of the studies methods so it looks like you are the one arguing bias.

 

I see. According to you, I can't participate because I didn't read every post? Really?

I read your OP and the first page of responses. I have also read about you and your friends patting each other on your backs. I have merely attempted to ferret out your logical positions as to this and have been sadly disappointed. I have been met with derision, lies, diversions, and fallacies. All while not seeing a single piece of science to support your positions.

Now. when you're faced with rational thought and logical questions you have chosen to shoot the messenger. This is a sad turn of events, really.

 

Yet there is still no gun ownership data in the US. You cannot get around that little inconvenient fact.

 

No? Interesting.


So, if you made a study that looked at the relationship of guns in the home with crime or violent death, this would not satisfy your parameters? Say you measure homes without guns against homes WITH guns. Would that not quantify the relationship of "more guns, more crime"? Hmmm?

You seem to be taking a very narrow view on this.

You're still arguing against ONE STUDY? There is wide clinical agreement as to gun ownership data, your argument is weak, but why restrict your critique to ONE paper?

Can you explain this or are you just throwing out broad aspersions?

 

You can keep repeating that falsehood, but it won't make it any truer, friend.

Try a new song.

 

You call fact falsehood. If there is gun ownership data, then show it and shut me up. Fact is there isn't and the studies you point to point to the fact they have to devise proxy data. Why? Because the data does not exist. Get a clue.

 

So you admit you know nothing about this thread? You have no clue what has been presented?

Back patting? Really? A few pro gunners are a group of back patters? Well regardless of what you may think we know what this thread is about and you admit you do not.

 

Why is it then, my friend, that time and time again, when bans are enacted, crime statistics go up, and when they are over-turned, crime statistics go down? The obvious trend is more guns, less crime. It is proven in the FBI crime statistics. I posted them earlier.

 

Because there are no studies that omit pertinent variables that agree with the numbers.

 

Since this topic has laughed in the face of academic studies and graphs, it is safe to add my comments once again.

I put forward the view with no data of any kind, that guns = more crime. As gun deaths are home related. Ie violence in the household with the people involved owning firearms.

Take that away, the deaths decrease.

 

So do you consider a drug deal gone bad in someone's house, household violence?

 

That is a variable but all gun deaths in the home are not a crime.

 

To be honest, i havent really thought it through. I plagerised that comment, but no worries. It has been shot down already. Pun intended.

 

The studies I "pointed" to use a variety of methodologies. Are you honestly saying that all twenty four of those studies used "proxy data"? Get a clue. Blind ideology is very unbecoming on you.

You still haven't answered this post. Why?

 

That's not what I said, friend.
I said:

"I read your OP and the first page of responses. I have also read about you and your friends patting each other on your backs. I have merely attempted to ferret out your logical positions as to this and have been sadly disappointed. I have been met with derision, lies, diversions, and fallacies. All while not seeing a single piece of science to support your positions."
​

If I have not read something vital to this, like perhaps where you offered scientific proof for your positions then kindly direct me to that post. In the mean time I have read your OP like you asked and read the first page that set up your argument. More importantly I have read with interest your boisterous claims of victory and your stated positions on this. Unfortunately for you, I have not seen you back up your position with any valid evidence (in fact I don't recall you offering ANY proof, whether valid or not).

You didn't notice? You all answer for each other regardless of whom the post is addressed to, and you all take the time to post to each other the imagined superiority of your positions. Some might call this a circle jerk, but I have chosen to more respectfully call it "back-patting".

"WE", eh? Thank you for making my point for me, friend.


On the contrary I DO know what this thread is about. Perhaps better than you do. You started this thread with the assumption that you would bait someone into posting evidence that you would summarily dismiss on any bogus grounds you could manufacture. It didn't take long for you to get to work. Reiver kindly obliged your feigned curiosity while you and your tag team set about conjuring up any diversion you could muster. That's why Reiver left, I assume, because you and your friends would not take the science seriously.

 

Making spurious relationships is a fairly cheap trick, fella. I could show you how drunk driving fatalities have gone down while alcohol sales have gone up. Should we conclude then that increased alcohol sales will diminish drunk driving fatalities? This is the flaw with using raw data as you have done above, and precisely why we have studies that control for extraneous data.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

 

My thread and even if it addressed to them if I have something to add I will add. You really might want to read through the thread because honestly you have no clue what the content of my posts is do you? I mean other than these last few pages.

 

You could at least try to offer something more compelling than "my ball!", while running away home. Sometimes it's better to take a stand and fight for your principles (or in your case, ideology). If you have made a compelling argument earlier, then I would think you would be anxious now to show it off and post it. Sadly this is not the case. You have done everything BUT that. Diversions, fallacies and even deception has ruled your posts of late. All while huffing with false indignation. It would be comical if it were not so sad.

So, you have taken exception to certain studies that Reiver has offered you here. You claimed to have read them all, yet cannot directly refer to them, nor can you cite a peer review that finds fault with these studies.

Sorry, your whole bait and switch is a bust.

 

You fail you offer nothing to this thread and if you expect me to cite something from 10 days back you really have no life.

Bye Bye now

 

Taking your ball and going home, eh? Pity.

I had hoped you could show some logic behind your stance. Perhaps one of your tag team will take up your water pail and attack me or something. That would be cool.

It's too bad you couldn't defend your position, because I really was trying to get to the bottom of it.

 

It is apparent that what Danct and Reiver were doing is trolling.

Here are a few truths that have been continually denied.

Fact: There is no gun ownership data available in the United States. Therefore no study using gun ownership data can be factual since gun ownership data does not exist.

Fact: Theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. Existing observations are increased gun sales in the US and lowering crime rates.

Fact: Their hypothesis "more guns = more crime" does not even hold water with existing observations so cannot be elevated to theory.

Fact: Many "peer reviewed" papers are published. That does not automatically mean they are unassailable or correct.

 

Oh, that's rich.

Anyone who disagrees with your conclusions is "trolling" I suspect. How convenient for you.

Oh, good! We finally have some "truths". Can't wait.

False.

Right off the bat, you've made a false claim. You may put litle weight in the data that exists, but this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, friend. Many other researchers use the available gun ownership data. Researchers from both sides of this issue. They all disagree with your conclusion, because it is not truthful.

And??????

Don't leave us hanging like that. All you've stated is that you have a "theory", based on observations. Whoop-dee-doo! Spurious relationships is nothing to bra about, friend. We were talking about scientific and peer reviewed studies I thought.

False, again.

False.

This is innumeracy at its best.

You're comparing raw data with scientific study. How is this not sinking in?

That's correct, however the ones that pass this test (peer review) unscathed are highly respected and held up in high regard.

So, you're partly correct in this last "fact". Not a very good average, really. One half for five is nothing to take home to mom, friend.

 

No gun ownership data exists so you fail right off the bat. You have not been able to show any gun ownership data to prove your erroneous point but have asked me to show that which does not exist.

 

I cant figure the point of him even posting in the thread. Ar least Reiver believed in his studies but Dance only believes in reiver and really does not even understand what Reiver believes in.

 

That's precisely the back-slapping I spoke of earlier. Thanks for proving my point. You two should get a room.

I have more than once explained my purpose here, friend. I can't help it if you ignore me. Your OP and thread title asks for information that clearly exists, therefor the question becomes the value of that research. I fully realize you and your friends have attempted to dismiss the science. I would expect nothing less. MY intent has and still is to fnd out the validity of your dissent. I have given you many opportunities to offer me this evidence and you have done every dance known to man to avoid doing so. I can only conclude based on your inabilities in this regard that you have nothing and instead offer only empty bluster.

This really shouldn't be a difficult concept for you to understand.