Arming public reduces crime

Given the US has always had gun control when is the revolution arriving?

 

What dirty little secret? You just stated basically the same thing that I did, and then acted like you were providing something new.

Safe storage and ammo accountability is no different.

I have not seen anything in your post that covers how strict the gun laws are in Switzerland, other than you saying so.

Your point basically seems to be that you made no point. I swept nothing under the rug, though if you know what regulations you speak of then why not share them?

 

I see that this is just your second post here, so I'd like to welcome you here. You seem like a reasoned thinker and we can always use more of those. I WOULD caution you, however that you don't need to construct straw man arguments in order to participate. I don't believe that I or anyone else here has advocated gun abolition, so your argument, I'm afraid is irrelevant here.

There IS much meat on the bone here, however if you care to take a stab at it.

 

Are you speaking to yourself, or is your post directed at someone in particular?

 

I do not know all the details of Swiss gun laws.

However I do know that inside the US, an unfortunate outcome of the anti-gun crowds willingness to play dirty results in opposition to laws that might otherwise be supported even by gun owners.

For example I could appreciate that it may be reasonable and prudent to have a sherif or other authority approve concealed carry permits.

However a willingness to abuse that reasonable seeming requirement resulted in a number of states (mine included) effectively banning concealed carry outright without having to go through legal channels to do so. They simply deny virtually all requests.

As a result there is a strong "shall issue" push going on.



Regarding "irrefutable evidence." I think this may have to be a point where we recall that the point of debates is not to get the other person to make a 180 but to convince others.

There are examples where sudden dramatic increases in the presence of guns are shown to have immediately altered crime and rape rates. There are also examples, such as Britains gun ban, which show a failure in reducing criminal gun use.

However there is no evidence you would ever accept. This isn't the first time we've discussed these matters. You've ignored the few government sponsered studies on those maters, and, as they wouldn't give the desired outcome, academia tries to ignore their existance, and instead seeks to do studies where they can include many variables they can "control" for in order to get the answer they seek, occasionally making a mockery of the peer review process. Which is unfortunate as I'm published. I suppose I can hope that this doesn't affect the reputation of my fields.

If there are any other readers that would like me to, I could hunt down the links to other threads, studies, and examples to substantiate my claims.

Otherwise I believe your arrogant and explenationless appeals to authority will have little rhetorical weight with any third party reader and I can leave it at this.

 

Refer me to one study that empirically investigates the impact of the handgun ban on crime rates? You'll probably just have the Telegraph and the Daily Mail to refer to!

 

We had a whole thread on this recently. There were studies sponsored by the government and conducted by UK institutions. The links and references should still be in that thread if you'd like to comment on them.

That academia avoids examining that period as much as able, despite it being exactly the sort of event they should focus on if they were remotely objective, is rather the point I've been making.

 

Just present a study that directly tests the impact of the handgun ban. You won't be able to do it. You will only refer to raw data and secondary sources using raw data

There's no avoidance. There's simply nothing to show. The handgun ownership rate was too low and the impact of the handgun ban, given the impossibility of considering future gun culture effects, cannot be determined. Perhaps you think there's a conspiracy going on? That would be on a par with the quality of your previous comments!

 

While handgun ownership was indeed low, gun crime was certainly not nonexistant. Thus it would certainly be possible to do a panel analysis on gun crime around the ban to test the hypothesis that gun bans reduce the use of guns by criminals.

However at this time that wouldn't give the answer gun control advocates would like to see. Should gun crime rates decline precipitously in the future, I would expect to start seeing such studies being performed.

And I don't think there is any conspiracy. Just simple bias coming from a lack of political diversity in the social sciences. Essentially a different sort of selection bias on a systemic scale.

Though in some cases there is funding by gun control sources. You know this to be the case as they are pretty decent about being transperant about funding, and this has come up in a number of discussions on studies you've mentioned.

 

Where's this study supporting your position then?

Utter drivel! Are you seriously telling me that there isn't a right wing academic able to use STATA? No handgun fan who can't fire up LIMDEP? Your posts continue to lack any merit

 

Then, I'm glad that you agree that stricter gun regulations have merit then.
I apologize that had not sensed your agreement.

Actually this is incorrect. Laws that can govern the safe storage of guns are entirely separate from laws that govern sales and use of ammo. When you look at Swiss ammo laws, for instance, they strictly control the sale of ammo. As part of their national militia requirement, they are issued one sealed box of ammo which is only to be opened at time of national emergency. Ammo is registered at point of sale unless purchased at a gun range where it is supposed to be used exclusively.

Then your argument completely hinges on your apparent ignorance of Swiss gun laws while holding an apparently blind acceptance of the fact that more guns equals less crime. Need I remind you that YOU are the one who brought up Switzerland?

Look. Yes, Swiss have a comparatively high gun ownership rate, and yes they have an average crime rate (#20 while Finland's is #3, and Japan's <with their strict gun laws> is #34), but for you to try to use the Swiss or the Fins for that matter as reasons for less gun restrictions would be a mistake.

Sigh,.... well aside from the distinctions I made above as to ammo restrictions and aside from your own allusions to their requirements as to gun training (two huge distinctions by themselves, by the way), they also have requirements to store their military guns in certain fashion and be able to show that they have not been used illegally through regular inspections. They also have stricter requirements than us as to carry permits. In Switzerland you need to apply for a permit to carry which is usually only given to those who work in private security. All gun purchases, including private purchases require a purchase permit from the government that will allow for only one gun purchase.

OK?

*

 

Wrap your minds around this gun haters, gun control has no (positive) impact!

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/10/26/anti-gun-study-filled-with-flaws-and-bias/

http://www.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

 

Frankly, I found your response puzzling, sunnyside.

You responded to my post concerning Swiss gun laws, but admitted that you know nothing of their laws. Ironically, your response does not logically refute ANYTHING in my post and instead seems to address another post where I had found your answers to be inconsistent.
Are you sure that your response wasn't a disingenuous attempt to avoid addressing that other post directly while attempting to muddy the waters with red herring diversions?

Of course, you are more than free to actually address my post concerning Swiss gun laws if you like. You will recall that the other member had made a comparison that I merely expounded upon. Nothing so difficult that you could not honestly weigh in on, certainly.

Now this is unfortunate, sunnyside. For you to resort to outright insults will not improve your argument, whatever that might be.

What IS your argument, by the way, other than attacking me that is?

 

the poster I was responsing to specifically said:

in any case, information is not the Daily mail's primary function.

It has to be one of the most useless pieces of print media in the UK, and can not be relied on for accuracy in anything.

It can be relied on to produce articles that sound somewhat hysterical in tone.

 

Shhh! I must admit that I get a level of entertainment at how folk use the likes of the Mail and Telegraph as credible sources. A guilty pleasure no less

 

well, at least they have some secondary entertainment value.



once upon a time theu probably had more uses:

- in the old days, fish and chips shops used to wrap their offerings in newspaper.

- even further back in time people used to use newspaper for toilet paper.

 

Still used in my local. They're a high class establishment though so I reckon they try to use the Guardian as much as possible

The Mail ain't even allowed in the house. I've kicked the father in law out when he tried to sneak on in for the sudoku

 

well, I must admit there would be some irony in using it as toilet paper ... using bullsh to wipe sh.

 

What about Duke University? Law.Virginia. edu?

Purely biased pro gun fanatics right?

http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/187208-arming-public-reduces-crime-9.html#post3929328

 

You're encouraging nostalgia! I'm fine with it but the gun fanatics could go into a John Wayne cheerfesting frenzy

 

That does not negate the veracity of the fact Britain having an overwhelming violent crime ratio.

 

I simply illustrated that Australia has far more burglaries than America. I never made any scientific claims. That's your fail. If you are going to be a pedantic nazi, try keeping the tripe at bay.

 

The courts haven't stopped perpetrators from lawsuit though. Why should gun manufacturers be held liable for negligence on the owner's behalf? If the gun blows up in the owner's hand, then he has a right to sue the gun maker.

If a motorist wrecks a car, s/he doesn't sue the car manufacturer. If a motorist is injured in a car due to negligence on the manufacturers behalf, then they can sue the manufacturer.

The simple fact guns are outrageously expensive, because of government regulations, is reason enough a special tax on guns is wrong.

Gun laws are left up to the states. I fully agree with that. It's the owner's responsibility for what that person does with their guns. They are held fully accountable for any negligence that leads to injury.

 

The Swiss certainly have more stringent standards, but I don't think we should follow their lead. No.

Why? I'm perfectly content with the way things are now. Legalize drugs and you might see a drastic reduction in shootings. Black markets are strongholds for violence when there is no regulatory agencies to protect consumers and suppliers.

 

Exactly, and more gun regulation would create a more robust black market for weapons.