http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:51:36 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Yup, no causal relationship. Thanks.



More Guns = More Gun Homicides, Statistically Speaking

In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What
we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship
between those factors — areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun
homicides and homicides in general. But studies **haven’t been able to show a causal relationship**
— that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun
violence. It’s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal
relationship. [Asterisks added]


Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:51:36 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Yup, no causal relationship. Thanks.



More Guns = More Gun Homicides, Statistically Speaking

In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What
we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship
between those factors ? areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun
homicides and homicides in general. But studies **haven?t been able to show a causal relationship**
? that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun
violence. It?s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal
relationship. [Asterisks added]


Salmonbait

Funny, you cherry pick a few words..... so the rest of the text means
nothing to you? If so, no wonder you are so ignorant and narrow minded.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:35:29 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:51:36 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Yup, no causal relationship. Thanks.



More Guns = More Gun Homicides, Statistically Speaking

In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What
we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship
between those factors ? areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun
homicides and homicides in general. But studies **haven?t been able to show a causal relationship**
? that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun
violence. It?s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal
relationship. [Asterisks added]


Salmonbait

Funny, you cherry pick a few words..... so the rest of the text means
nothing to you? If so, no wonder you are so ignorant and narrow minded.

The rest of the text says basically the same thing. Go read it, or have ESAD read it for you.


Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:35:29 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:51:36 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Yup, no causal relationship. Thanks.



More Guns = More Gun Homicides, Statistically Speaking

In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What
we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship
between those factors ? areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun
homicides and homicides in general. But studies **haven?t been able to show a causal relationship**
? that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun
violence. It?s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal
relationship. [Asterisks added]


Salmonbait

Funny, you cherry pick a few words..... so the rest of the text means
nothing to you? If so, no wonder you are so ignorant and narrow minded.

The rest of the text says basically the same thing. Go read it, or have ESAD read it for you.


Salmonbait

No it doesn't.

On 1/15/2013 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:51:36 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/


This is probably the most valid statement in the whole article.

"researchers are left with statistical models, which are “very
fragile,� says Charles F. Wellford, who was chair of the committees
that authored a lengthy 2004 report on this topic by the National
Research Council of the National Academies. These models are subject
to what control variables researchers use"

Basically it means the statistics are so ambiguous that they may not
be relevant ... for either side.

I do see one statistic that we should pay more attention to,
particularly when you look at Zimmerman. Almost as many people are
killed by unarmed assailants every year than rifles and shotguns
(including all of those assault rifles) combined (FBI UCR murder by
weapon) 528 by long gun, 841 by bare hands.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/murder%20weapon.htm

You can search 10shrtbl08 on the FBI web page to see it first hand in
an XLS file



It's a good thing Zimmerman had a gun. Otherwise he might have been killed.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:51:36 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/


This is probably the most valid statement in the whole article.

"researchers are left with statistical models, which are ?very
fragile,? says Charles F. Wellford, who was chair of the committees
that authored a lengthy 2004 report on this topic by the National
Research Council of the National Academies. These models are subject
to what control variables researchers use"

Basically it means the statistics are so ambiguous that they may not
be relevant ... for either side.

I do see one statistic that we should pay more attention to,
particularly when you look at Zimmerman. Almost as many people are
killed by unarmed assailants every year than rifles and shotguns
(including all of those assault rifles) combined (FBI UCR murder by
weapon) 528 by long gun, 841 by bare hands.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/murder%20weapon.htm

You can search 10shrtbl08 on the FBI web page to see it first hand in
an XLS file

Yep!! Typical, cherry pick one item, to hell with the rest! If that's
the way that you learn, I'm sure glad I'm not a teacher trying to teach
you something. Math must be pure hell for you if you cherry pick one
thing that works for you and call the rest bull****!

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:05:42 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:51:36 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/


This is probably the most valid statement in the whole article.

"researchers are left with statistical models, which are ?very
fragile,? says Charles F. Wellford, who was chair of the committees
that authored a lengthy 2004 report on this topic by the National
Research Council of the National Academies. These models are subject
to what control variables researchers use"

Basically it means the statistics are so ambiguous that they may not
be relevant ... for either side.

I do see one statistic that we should pay more attention to,
particularly when you look at Zimmerman. Almost as many people are
killed by unarmed assailants every year than rifles and shotguns
(including all of those assault rifles) combined (FBI UCR murder by
weapon) 528 by long gun, 841 by bare hands.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/murder%20weapon.htm

You can search 10shrtbl08 on the FBI web page to see it first hand in
an XLS file

Yep!! Typical, cherry pick one item, to hell with the rest! If that's
the way that you learn, I'm sure glad I'm not a teacher trying to teach
you something. Math must be pure hell for you if you cherry pick one
thing that works for you and call the rest bull****!

You pick more cherries than a Guatemalan immigrant

Nice. You must try a lot harder to be as bigoted as John though...