The gun control debate is dominated by a near complete reliance on low brow secondary sources telling people what to think and bogusly utilising raw data. Why do you think there is a lack of objectivity on this topic, such that evidence is not used to determine conclusion?
That is no way to talk about your shoddy anti-gun sources! You whining about lack of objectivity is pretty priceless though. Thanks for the laugh!
Ayuh,... Ditto,... "Studies" commissioned with Liberal Progressive funding is NOT Evidence... It's yer Propaganda....
Could you be more specific and indentify the low brow secondary sources, or high brow primary sources, if there is such a thing?
Secondary sources are opinion pieces that, depending of their quality, may or may not refer to the available research. A primary source will be research, by definition.
Don't be providing nothing. Let's up the stakes in order to improve comment on here. Reference a paper that you deem to be important. Provide a summary of the data, method and the extent that robustness is ensured. Don't hide! Look forward to your answer
So, for example, would crime statistics compiled by law enforcement, that quantify the number of home invasions reported, and cross references the percentage of times the armed home owners succeeeded in discharging thier weapons, be a high brow primary source?
I know. Why do you gun-control proponents keep on relying on these heavily biased studies that fail to control for illegally purchased guns or criminality?
That would be the use of raw data. Criminology informs us that there are numerous explanatory variables for crime rates. This means that we have to be very careful when deriving conclusion as we may have problems such as omitted variable bias and endogeneity concerns. Raw data must therefore be used within a coherent empirical specification (with that coherency then tested through econometric robustness checks) In terms of burglaries we have divergent results in the available evidence. This is actually predicted by the theory as we have competing effects. First, we can refer to straight forward deterrence effects. However, we can also refer to how the presence of guns- as they are valuable loot- can change the relative attractiveness of burglary crime. Its made more complex by the fact that there are potentially important interactive variables (i.e. business cycle effects, which are found to impact on crime rates, can also impact on the gun-related effects) Your post ultimately advertises the importance of adopting the empirical process. Given the logic of that position, why do you think so many of the pro-gunners ignore it?
Most of what you hear/read/see regarding both sides of this argument are rank with usupported or invalid conclusions based on any data they can spin.....like this stuf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs09st.pdf However, I'm not above making unsupported conclusions myself. For example, I think that an armed citizenry is no more likely to reduce crime than an unarmed citizenry, which is no less shoddy thinking than the notion that armed citizens reduce crime. I wish I had some stats to support my opinion It's pretty hard to have any kind of interesting reparte' on this site without some kind of failure of logic
I tend to hear that on here only on side: the pro-gunners. We obviously can refer to instances where inappropriate remark is applied to the gun debate, such as invalid use of spree killings to ratchet up gun control calls (ably discussed by Kleck). However, on the forum those that hide from the evidence are almost entirely on one side. I refer directly to the primary research. Its best practice. That shows that 'more guns=less crime' can be rejected. It also shows that the 'more guns-more crime' cannot be rejected. I can't ignore the scientific evidence.
Oh man!....thanks!......it's Kleck's research that showed 94% of gun owners who had thier homes invaded by armed intruders failed to discharge thier weapons. I've been trying to track that down for months! The 2nd amendment rights lobby needs the emotional element, as does the gun control lobby. But you could throw all the valid data at the 2nd amendment folks you need to disprove every argment they make...but they're still gonna hang thier hats on the 2nd.
I certainly rate Kleck. Unlike some of the others he has consistently adopted excellent methodologies that challenge accepted thinking Its when I hear that the 2nd demands irrationality that I have to raise an eyebrow. There should be an attempt to demonstrate that, whilst we can ignore the notion of efficiency or social welfare maximisation, there is some consistency with rational outcome
I'm a second amendment supporter, and don't understand the lack of willingness from the NRA and the 2nd amendment lobby to define "arms", and "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" If they could get automatic weapons classified as "arms", that would pretty much put a damper on the gun control lobby.
In terms of the legal aspects its best to stick with the vague. Close attention can lead to debate that could initiate a result difficult to overturn.
It's not like some of the founders didn't address what a well regulated militia is, or arms for that matter. In that time, a well armed militia would have cannon, muskets, swords, horses. wagons, and in some cases boats. They stated they needed this equipment to repel armed invasions, and/or overthrow an American regime that became oppressive. Today...you would need airpower to repel the kind of armed invasion needed to invade the US. In fact...all other countries in the world combined, do not possesses the amphibious capability, and air power, to simultaneously invade the US. If the US government became oppressive, there is no militia capable of stopping it's military. The definition of "arms", and "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", has changed dramitically, and bears no resemblence to today's America, is it not completely irrelevant to small "arms" legislation in today's America?
Repealing the 2nd Amendment would certainly affect the performance of the companies that make up the NRA wouldn't it?
The problem is that the 2nd can be used by both sides. However, its not directly relevant to the thread. I'm more interested in the use of (or 'lack of' in this case) quantitative evidence. I'd leave the 2nd to lawyers and other assorted hell beasts.
Ayuh,.... Armed patriots have played major roles in wars, through out history,... The french underground raise holy 'ell on the nazi, After they were armed by the US air doppin' rudimentary small arms... "n,... What makes you so sure that any of, much less All the Military is gonna follow Obo into battle, killin' their own Families,..?? Yer also conveniently omittin' the 2nd 1/2 of it,... " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Wow...you're from New York.......but the way you write makes me feel like I'm talkin' to someone who starred on HeeHaw. The French underground did not play a major role in getting the Germans out of France. They were under matched and thier efforts, while patriotic and noble, played a very small role. The US government will not face armed rebellion under the Obama adminstration...it just won't happen. I didn't omit the right of people to keep and bear "arms"...in fact, I spent a lot of time trying to define "arms"
Ayuh,... New York is a pretty big state, East coast wise,... Lot's more here than that shiphole City.... You got something against a Maineiac/ Redneck/ Yankee,..?? 'n you must think Our Military is gonna Shoot their Mothers, eh,..?? You utter the bullship Spin, then try to blow me off,.... The 2nd amendment means as much today, as it did in the late 1700s,... For the same reasons stated by Our foundin' fathers...
