Great Amerian Gun Myth no 3 Guns will ensure my freedom!!

Hmmm, we saw a reduction of crime during the years the study covered while gun ownership climbed. Go figure.

 

Hi Hoosier8

Just checking if I can reply at all since I did not manage to find a greeting thread area. But "freedom" to what do you want quantified?

 

An empirical specification is required to avoid spurious conclusion. Bit obvious really

And what study? Everytine I ask for a reference you run off

 

You mean a worthless piece of "peer reviewed paper" is required to ignore actual facts.

BTW, during that same time many States passed carry laws.

You did, you just can't admit it.

 

Does the scientific evidence disagree with the pro-gun cultist group think? Poor ole you! In terms of the carry laws, the effects are known to be ambiguous but tend to zero. The evidence was spawned by the dodgy econometrics used by Lott, which subsequently showed crime can go up.

 

I've referred to the reality: a review of the evidence confirms that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. We have two possible scenarios. You either know that and are deliberately hiding from the fact. Alternatively, you genuinely haven't bothered to review the evidence. I know what I have my money on!

 

less guns=more crime That is the reality
where... no guns=rise in violent (gunless) crime exponentially is equal to that same reality (your own data extrapolates that)
also:see History (Man has not changed one dam**d bit in 4000 years)
unarmed citizens=subjects/slaves
We already know your interpretation of your doctrine cannot compute that.

 

You are right, it cannot be rejected, but it cannot be confirmed either and in fact the evidence you claim should be evident is in complete opposition. Much like the study relies on information from anti gun groups like the Brady Campaign, so does your thought process prove that you have an agenda that you are trying to prove with statements like, "pro-gun cultist group think" and reliance on "one study". Now Reivy, have "peer reviewed papers" ever been proven wrong?

 

Again, you show your naivety. In hypothesis testing we never accept. We always reject or fail to reject. That your position is inconsistent with the evidence is just a factual comment.

Lott has certainly been proved wrong. Kleck's analysis is much more valuable, but dwarfed by the literature finding 'more guns=more crime'. The rational action is to review the literature and form a conclusion accordingly (e.g. meta-analysis). The rational action is not to avoid the evidence and make very silly spurious conclusions and spout anti-intellectual guff

 

Well of course, anyone that does not accept your form of snobbery is naive.

 

Anyone who has bothered to peruse the evidence would accept my summary. Here, we don't have a hypothesis

 

You are a sad fella. Are "peer reviewed papers" ever proven wrong?

 

Why are you asking for repetition? I've already informed you how Lott's analysis has been proved to be empirically biased. This only confirms the need to review the literature. Something you haven't done (and the reason why you keep putting your foot in it)

 

So, how do you quantify freedom?

 

Here the analysis is easy to quantify: social costs that create a deadweight loss (which can be used to sum up the lost freedom)

 

Please, you are much too intelligent a person to indulge in straw men for the purpose of discussion. At no time did anyone gauge the level of overall development of any society by the level of gun control. I am not an Australian (merely a visitor here) but, as far as I know, Australia has been a part of the first world since it became a nation. Gun ownership has never been widespread in Australia, and ownership of hand guns even less so. The restrictions upon firearms came after the Port Arthur massacre, and concerned only certain types of weapons. These restrictions had no affect upon perhaps 99% of the Australian population, and most Australians considered them necessary - and far from an infringement upon their rights or freedoms.

That is a reasonable analysis of many such situations, but much depends upon the nature of the crisis, and what precisely is done to avoid its recurrence. The 'war on drugs', and 'the war on terror', are examples of various governments flailing around and effectively suppressing rights and freedoms in their efforts to look like they are addressing the problems concerned. The illegal importation and use of narcotics have been barely diminished by these measures, and we are all now in much greater danger from terrorism because of the thousands of innocent people whose deaths we have caused by our clumsy and illegal invasions and occupations.

Thank you for those interesting observations. As I have stated in a previous post, I do not pretend to have the answer to 30,000 Americans (black, white, and brindle) dying from gunshot wounds at the hands of their fellow Americans, but I suspect that statistic will remain a constant as long as things like the 2nd Amendment remain an article of faith in your civic religion. It is not up to 'foreigners' such as myself to tell you how to conduct your society - when Americans find such statistics unacceptable, they will do something about it.

I do not have enough access to empirical, statistically based, studies to unequivocally state that more guns = fewer gun deaths, or the reverse. I can only state that the death from gunshot wounds in the UK is approximately 50 per annum, as opposed to 30,000 in the USA. So, for England, Scotland, and Wales, (and this is an important distinction for the purposes of this discussion) I consider our system preferable. Your opinion, and that of most of your compatriots, may well differ in respect of your own society - and that is your prerogative.

 

Someone besides me noticed a snotty air of assumed superiority?

You can always tell someone is more intellectualer than others when they go in heavily for jargon, name calling and put downs.

 

Rather than going for the schoolyard prattle routine (which is a decided bore), why do you think all of your chums have hid when I've asked them for references for empirical studies on the subject?

 

A man that requires no more out of life than to vicariously live through another's words, lacking experience, sits on the bottom rung of the ladder.

 

Of course I was being facetious. American has always had a higher rate of murder, whether by gun or other means than some of the other developed countries. Most differences, IMHO is due to culture rather than gun laws. For instance, the high rate of gun violence in black communities compared to other groups can be assumed to be driven by many factors other than just gun availability though that would be the reason it is so prevalent over knife or other means. Something is going on in the black community, whether it is the leftovers of our separated cultures to the disparity of wealth which probably drives much of the drug culture.

Our war on drugs creates a whole class of criminal. Prohibition and the other "freedoms" that have been declared illegal drives much of the gang and mafia violence protecting territory. Our government puts people in jail for growing a plant. Every 19 minutes someone is busted for drugs in this country and one of the reasons we have such a large prison population. Whenever government tries to control something it just drives it underground, creating a black market and the ensuing violence associated with it, the same happens with gun control. I would bet we would cut our gun violence in half if government quit trying to control what people do with there free time. I do not advocate drug use but I do advocate education of the effects of what people do. Religion used to be the foundation for behavior training but that is also under attack.

 

There is more to it than just "black communities"



It obvious that the highest homicides correlate to those states voting republican

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/07/geography-gun-violence/2655/

 

And you are probably too intelligent to think that all of the 30 or so thousand death-by gunfire are equivalent.

If by some horrible mischance, I had to shoot someone to defend myself, that goes into the same big pile with suicide, police shootings, gang shootings, rape / murder, etc.

And please, dont get tiresome with things like how our constitution is an article of faith in a religion. Its an insult, if not to your intelligence as I hope it is, it is sure is to mine.

 

You know, your insults boasts, bad grammar and big sounding words dont add up all that well.

Could you please try showing a bit more self respect, and a bit for other people?

 

I didn't expect an honest answer to be fair. The question 'why do you think all of your chums have hid when I've asked them for references for empirical studies on the subject?' can only lead to pro-gunner foot shooting!