Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

Another red herring fallacy. Is this all you have?

Why didn't you address the errors you made in your last post? The ones you called "facts", that weren't actually facts. Easier to attack and distract, I guess. Pity.

 

I know yet you do not get it. The studies are (*)(*)(*)(*) because all of the statical evidence points in another direction. Reiver saw this and basically discounted it as a spurious relationship. Well if you come down to it those studies do nothing but use a limited data set, hand picked variables and assumptions pulled out of an ass somewhere to reach the conclusion they want to reach as well as some studies being misapplied.

So next time you call something a spurious relationship make sure of a few things.

1. Make sure the study is relevant to the topic.
2. Make sure you understand the topic and just don't jump in toward the end.
3. Know what a spurious relationship is.

Definition of SPURIOUS

1: of illegitimate birth : bastard
2: outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : false <the spurious eminence of the pop celebrity>
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged
b : of a deceitful nature or quality <spurious excuses>

Now understand that the title of the thread is do-more-guns-equal-more-crime-prove-it. Well all of the statistical data (real raw numbers) do not agree with the statement that more guns = more crime. That is a fact.

It is a fact that we have gun crime in the US but it is also a fact that it is a small part of the crime rate and in all honesty most of those crimes would happen with or without guns. I asked many questions early on and Reiver could not answer so he put me on ignore.

When this thread is closed I will start another and I will PM you so you can read it all instead of going off half cocked.

 

Danc, NO ONE has ever asked how many guns I have.

 

I think you should first address the elephant in the room. No gun ownership data exists.

 

Then perhaps the OP should not have used the title he used, because more guns do not mean more crime. Any way you look at it, crimes have gone down, even though gun sales have gone up. They may be unrelated, but the OP is full of it.

 

Good points. Keep them coming.

 

I have to agree that there is sketchy information regarding actual gun ownership. Most numbers out there showing gun sales are based off of NICS checks, although there may be multiple gun sales per check. All I know, is that gun sales are at record highs.

This may have been posted before, but if not, here it is: Harvard Journal Study of Worldwide Data Obliterates Notion that Gun Ownership Correlates with Violence.

 

I have read that study, if you search the title and read the actual paper. The conclusion provides some very good information. On who the burden of proof is placed upon.

 

If Reiver stated that the use of raw data over scientific research is in effect, making a spurious relationship, then he was perfectly correct. There can be no denial of this fact. I can show you data that defies the knowledge that drinking and driving cause fatal accidents. To attempt to elevate the use of raw data in a discussion such as this is simply innumeracy and not a valid manner for a logical debate.

Are you sure you know what a spurious relationship is?

1) You have yet to define the relevancy, so I will not concede this charge.

2) These threads are open to all members and members post during all phases of the discussions, friend. Your inabilities to address your logical thought process with evidence should not compel you to narrow this free exchange to only your friends. This country was founded on the principle of free speech and the free exchange of opinions and ideas. It can be helpful to test ones position by holding it to the light of day. Don't fault me if your position has not particularly fared well in this process. It's times like that where one should look within, friend.

3) Oh, I fully know what the meaning of "spurious relationship" is, friend. For you to post the dictionary definition of "spurious" only confirms your naivete on this matter. Apparently, in spite of my repeated references to it, you are unaware of its application still to this day. The term "spurious relationship" has nothing to do with a bastard child. Ha! No. the term is a mathematical term used to describe correlations. Look here. You'll see that your adherence to raw data on this is a classic spurious relationship and that it should be discounted. Simple.

sigh,.... The only fact here is that you have made the classic error of making a spurious relationship. The fact remains that one does NOT "prove" something by making spurious relationships as you implied above. Hence the purpose of scientific research.

Why do I feel like I'm explaining something to my granddaughter?

Wow! Are you serious?

The purpose of scientific studies are to isolate a variable, in this case the gun effect. You seem to have missed this whole concept.

 

This is classic relativism.

By the way, its a fallacy. The fact that you personally have not received a polling call does NOT mean that they don't take place, friend. This didn't occur to you?

 

Oh, I see. You couldn't possibly man up and admit to your false claims that I logically eviscerated for you. You'd rather pursue your hobby of chasing windmills for deficiencies that don't exist.

How's that working out for you? I recall one of your own already rebutting your claim on this already. There are many gun ownership surveys to draw on and your incessant denials will not change this.

 

Yet there is still no gun ownership data available and all valid studies recognize this problem so devise ways to use proxy data, which leaves much to be desired.

 

Apparently you don't understand the thread then. It's strange that the thread starter hasn't chastised you about this. He is especially sensitive to this and you obviously have it backwards. The OP was challenging the "more guns=more crime" claim. Not championing it.

Ha ha! You're still on a wrong tangent.

First, you admit that you're making a spurious relationship and then (ironically) make the very same spurious relationship! Amazing.
Secondly, you're attacking the OP that takes YOUR side!



I was attacked by the OP for not being here during the middle of the discussion and then falsle attacked for not understanding the discussion. I have shown him his error on this, but I am sure he will be consistent to his principles and attack you as well, even though you are both of like mind.

Let's see, shall we?

 

Nope,.... You've been instructed to Read the thread, rather than Rehashin' the Same points,...
Over,...
'n Over,...
"n Over again...

Now yer tellin' everybody How to debate, nothin' 'bout the Topic...

 

Do more guns in a population equate to a higher crime rate? If yes prove it!

Well you are right you have to isolate the gun crime. Well should it be crimes where the gun was used as a weapon? Perhaps we should include crimes where a gun was present and not used.

What it was a drug offense? No shots fired but one of the paroled felons had a gun! Does that count?

Illegal immigrants got rowdy and fired off a few rounds in city limits. Does this count?

Say how is the US overall crime rate compared to the UK and AU?

 

http://factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

 

Next post please

 

Next please

 

[/QUOTE]

Do note some of the references please. You may see some you like and the CDC said the evidence was insufficient. Now I know this was not a study saying whether more guns = more crime but concidering some of the things that were found lacking:

Next please

 

Next please

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Now I know you are going to come across with a bunch of excuses discounting this but hey I expect as much from a pompous arrogant third grader.

 

only if they are in the closet

 

Way to edit my words out of context, Bondo. You completely distorted my meaning. Try addressing the topic instead of trolling.

 

It all depends on what you're looking for. If you're trying to look at the relationship of gun ownership to crime, there are many ways to approach it. Variables such as crime, drug use etc can and are controlled for. This has probably been explained to you already.

You're swinging at monsters in the dark.

I see you learned NOTHING from my cited link I provided you on what constitutes a spurious relationship. Did you even look at it?

 

How about you show some competence and post something yourself that is new! I mean I tore Reiver a new one and he put me on ignore. I will be glad to find fault with either what you use as evidence and show you the issues or show you how your third grade intellect has misapplied what the study says to meet your childish need to win.

Hell I agreed with Reiver on many points but those points were not relevant to the topic.