Ayuh,.... Probably because We live in the real world, where as you only exist on a piece of paper,... Yer irrelevant to the Real World....
Those interested in the real world would ensure that spurious conclusion is avoided. Those interested in the real world would know the empirical evidence and welcome the analysis for its robustness. Let's not play pretend. You're only interested in feeding your bias, by definition alien to 'real world' analysis
No it's not...it's truth and facts...not tabloidism or conspiracy theory...this actually, really happened!!! Why don't you go talk to, ask, and interview the new orleans victims about what happened and what was reported, and tell them it was merely "context of tabloidism." I'm onto you, now, Reiver. You're a fact and truth denier!!! One who deliberately spreads mis and disinformation!!! You're an advocate of globalism and the new world order!!! I'm onto you, fascist!!! You cannot defeat TRUTH and FACTS!!! How's that "Empirical Evidence" doing in your face?!
WATCH THIS!!! LISTEN TO THIS!!! YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON?! YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS?! YOU WANT TO KNOW THE REAL, HARD TRUTH AND FACTS?! HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXg2WsNCrW4&feature=related DENY AND COMBAT THESE REAL, HARD FACTS AND TRUTHS!!!
A rather low brow resource. Why do you think the pro-gun lobby are so insistent on avoiding the scientific process? The innate fear of objective analysis derives a competing mixture of contempt and amusement.
Reuters is a low brow resource? The scientific process for what, "gun control?" Talk to Hurricane Katrina victims about the "scientific process" of gun control they experienced. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Book and head knowledge, and scientific process vs. what's actually and really going on, peoples true, factual experiences. I really don't understand your argument or reasoning.
A proper source will be a primary piece of research that tests the various gun hypothesis. Those that hide from that research are celebrating the low brow, by definition. You have adopted nothing more than tabloidism. Its an exercise, a poor one at that, into the expression of political bias. Why do you think the scientific evidence, using objective methodologies that can be verified and tested for robustness, do not agree with your biased outlook? That is because you haven't embraced an evidence-based approach. Its of no more power than "I've seen something on Fox and it agrees with my position so I like it"
The only "Empirical Evidence" that matters is the Bill of Rights. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks what "gun control" should or should not encompass. Free Americans are guaranteed the inalienable and inherent right to keep and bear arms. Period. To the original poster, here's a link that provides one-hundred and seven pages of "Empirical Evidence" for your reading pleasure. It's a 2004 memorandum from the United States Department of Justice titled: WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Please click on the link and read away. Print the entire report for future references when needed. As an aside, something tells me the OP isn't going to like or agree with the DOJ's conclusion...
This should be interesting. I will not post anything related to data and fact or any studies because I have beaten you down so many time you actually put me on ignore. You make some assumptions here Reiver and the biggest is that you are the smartest and most educated in the room. Well let me see here? I have a wall full of professional certifications, certificates, diplomas and degrees. I am the member of a few invite only societies - including a national honors society, I have enough combine (Credits) hours to have a Doctorate but actually perusing such is of no interest to me... How about you shut up, listen and stop ignoring everything that is out of the scope of your mission. In this place there is a wealth of knowledge (I shut up around some members because it is better than being thought a fool - like you) and you ignore it. Ever ask why none of the left really join in here? Because rater that shoot you down and put a dent in their armor or side with you and lose credibility - they sit back and cheer for this (*)(*)(*)(*)ed fool (Reiver) on a mission.
Don't use ignore as a function. I will ignore anti-intellectualism, however, as its dull. I've made only one assumption: the pro-gunners will provide fluff instead of actually meeting the criteria set in the opening post. So far my assumption has been proved quite correct. Count the number of scientific studies provided by your chums! So why can't you meet the opening post's criteria? Why are you boring me with fluff? Because its a hot-bed of anti-intellectualism. I'm an optimistic type though and have tried harder than most to encourage a trait improvement. Even I have my limits though, which is why I prefer the sub-forums where intellectualism is more common
Actually Reiver I would love to play (I would win as usual) but I have work to do. You see I am in marketing and work from home. This usually affords plenty of time to play with you but I have some deadlines to meet. Sorry I can't dedicate any real time to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing you up as in the past. Sadly I must let others do it.
Reiver you really want to look like a fool as you usually do? Well perhaps this is how you want to spend your Sunday (Hey it is entertaining I admit) but I really have work to do. I just posted to insult you and tell you how your arrogance is outweighed by you ignorance. Do you ever stop and think - you fool? Where are all the liberal gun haters in your threads? They are smarter than you reiver. I (and others) have torn your studies to pieces time and time again. Reiver - your lack of intellect bores me and at least I can have an enjoyable (sometimes fruitful), debate with a lefty. They can at least think for themselves. Good by ignoramus.
I will continue to be optimistic and assume that a pro-gunner can indeed refer to the scientific evidence. That may indeed be evaluated as foolish.
"Evidence-based approach?" What have I been posting? It has most certainly been nothing but "evidence." Read and watch other reports. Hurricane Katrina victims driven from their homes and into stadiums, where there were murders, rapes, beatings, stealing, etc. Firearms were confiscated before that. Scientific methodology, objective analysis and hypothesis, to prove what, exactly, concerning guns and the 2nd Amendment? You're still not being clear. That guns are dangerous or not dangerous? That they're needed or not needed to secure Freedoms, Liberties, and Justices for ALL? That U.S. Citizens should continue to be allowed to own, buy, and sell or trade firearms, or not? That only the U.S. Military and Law Enforcement should be allowed to own, buy, sell, and trade firearms? Is the Constitution a biased outlook? NO, because it's what makes America, America. The U.S. Constitution being the supreme law of the land. Stern Wheeler hit the nail right on the head: "The only "Empirical Evidence" that matters is the Bill of Rights." Why do we need to have objective hypothesis and analysis to this? What am I saying? You're a fascist, communist, socialist, marxist, globalist, and liberal. Of course you would object to everything and anything that deals with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
You've been posting tabloidism, rather than scientific objective research. That will assuredly lead to a blinkered outlook where either raw data or case study examples are inappropriately applied. The US has always had gun control. And he 2nd Amendment: "In the years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, the individual states adopted even more stringent types of regulations...[T]he decades after ratification...saw increased, not decreased, levels of regulation" (Cornell & DeDino, 2004, A Well-Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham L. Rev.) Because the analysis into crime effects is ultimately an analysis into coercive relations. To ignore those relations would be alien to the concept of freedom. The Constitution, as I've already described, is a red herring. Folk go for other variants too, like confusing rational gun control with gun bans
Reiver quoted in an earlier post in this thread: "I don't want videos and other such low brow offering. I want reference to the primary research. That will involve author, title, journal, volume and page numbers. By referring to that research one can undertake the first lesson in objective analysis: literature reviewing" I have been posting links to articles and videos of actual, factual testimonies and occurances. People can write supposed or so called evidence in a book to prove, or try to prove a point or a theory, but it does NOT mean that it is true. There are MANY other variables. Other "evidence" like facts, statistics, experience(things or events that have actually happened in and through history, and recent past history)...to deny or not look at or use this in research for "empirical evidence" would be foolishness. Look at why the 2nd Amendment was written and given to the American People, and NOT to be infringed upon, EVER. What it secured for them back then, it secures for U.S. now, today(to keep tyranny, oppression, harrassment, and dictatorship from government at bay), to defend against an invading enemy, to defend against a foreign(united nations, and all who oppose and hate Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for ALL) and / or domestic enemy(criminals, and all who oppose and hate Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for ALL) in order to defend one's self, protect his / her family, homes, lands, possessions, and to secure, preserve, and keep our GOD given Constitutional Freedoms, Liberties, and Justices for ALL. Look at history, and the reasons why the American Revolution happened to begin with. Read up on the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. Look what happened in former nazi Germany and USSR when their governments disarmed their people. There was mass genocide, holocaust, torture, killings, murder, slavery... If you're looking for "empirical evidence" on paper, there, you've got it now. If the people of those countries would've said, "NO, we're keeping our firearms," perhaps there would've been much, much less blood shed. "We, the People," of the United States of America, are saying with an absolute "NO," and a shaking fist in the face of tyranny, "We will keep our guns and our Freedom." History has proven that if and when a government has disarmed a people, they are abused, thrown into camps and prisons, and many are killed.
The recent small arms treaty / arms trade treaty is all about banning weapons in the U.S. Indeed, it sounds like they will allow U.S. to keep small arms, like shotguns, pistols, sporting weapons, and controlling the trade thereof. However, there really is something much, much more going on here. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, obama's regime, want ALL firearms banned except for Military and Law Enforcement. The u.n. is the one pushing this.
You haven't posted one scientific study. I'm not interested in secondary sources that agree with your personal bias. I'm interested in the objective research. For example, if you did bother with the research, you could try and counter the empirical evidence confirming the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis with analysis into the effect of endogeneity bias. This just confirms the need for scientific research. Papers from the like of Cook and Ludwig, for example, control for numerous variables (ensuring problems such as omitted variable bias is avoided). The econometric methods adopted also allow for testing of robustness (e.g. reverse causation is tested as standard practice) Look at your history: "In the years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, the individual states adopted even more stringent types of regulations...[T]he decades after ratification...saw increased, not decreased, levels of regulation" (Cornell & DeDino, 2004, A Well-Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham L. Rev.). Your position is based on an inaccurate account of that history! Empirical evidence has also shown, for example, that a gun owner is more likely to attack a family member with a gun than defend them. Its understanding these empirical relationships that we can construct rational policy. Here's an example (which can be used by both sides of the debate): Roberts (2009, Intimate Partner Homicide: Relationships to Alcohol and Firearms., Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 25 Issue 1, pp. 67-88 ) An overwhelming proportion of intimate partner (IP) homicide perpetrators are under the influence of substances when the crime occurs, and alcohol consumption is a strong predictor of intimate terrorism of women. In IP homicide, female victims are twice as likely to die from a gunshot wound as from stabbing, strangling, or other methods; and firearm ownership is shown to increase the likelihood of IP homicide by a factor of 5.38. Compiled from publicly available data sources, the present study analyzes a database of all lethal events occurring in the U.S. from 1985 to 2004. Using a panel of counties and negative binomial regression, the influences of alcohol and firearms, controlling for other variables, on IP homicide and IP homicide by firearm are estimated. Alcohol consumption and firearm ownership increase both the incidence rates of IP homicide and IP homicide by firearm. However, highly restrictive firearms carry laws also increase the incidence of IP homicide. IP homicide is strongly influenced by alcohol and firearms availability, but some types of firearms carry laws might be counterproductive in decreasing the incidence of this crime
