How to go about bringing anti-2A folks around

That they're incompatible is obvious. The only issue is, depending on the socialist analysis, where there are consistencies in argument. Market socialism, for example, can be embedded in the Austrian school and therefore negate the classical liberalism bluster

 

More opinion?

 

You do love repetition in your error (without bothering to make any attempt at reply). Mere political economy again. Embrace it and you might lose such tendency

 

it may be repetitive,but it's not an error...sorry cat,but I'm not at all impressed with your bombast.

 

I don't expect you to realise your error. I do expect you to continue to make content-free responses. Those that confuse liberalism and socialism tend to be American, reflecting of course their authoritarian past and the current party political games of consensus. Of course that's not always true. Appreciating that liberal democracy goes hand in hand with capitalism, whilst socialism refers to a radical change in the economic paradigm through the defence of property rights (i.e. Elimination of labour exploitation), isn't difficult to comprehend

 

Sorry. but insulting Americans for recognizing liberals embrace socialism isn't our error, it's yours...All we have to do is observe any of the OWS protests going on in various cities...

 

I haven't insulted anybody, merely described where the erroneous comment could originate. What do you think socialism entails? Let's work out where your individual error originates

 

Sorry,but I won't start with the assumption that I'm in error

 

Don't go all timid on me. Answer the question: what do you think socialism entails?

 

I'm not going 'timid' on you, I'm justb not willing to accept that I'm automatically wrong because the great reiver says so

liberals here in the US wouldn't feel at all sad about the government taking over private industry and dictating how the people spend their personal lives,and have said so.

 

At last, you've admitted that you don't understand socialism. I'd say well done but you've gone for the dreary abuse of the economic spectrum. And no, that's not opinion either!

Given you're spamming with invalidity, goodbye dear chap!

 

I 'admitted' no such thing, but hey.if you need an excuse to run away, this is as good as any....'dear' chap'.

 

I've been out of the thread for a while and don't know if even Reiver is still here.

But for those claiming negative externalities from gun ownership, what would you think about using variable values of life for different cohorts? Such as through econometric regressions to find "revealed preference", stated preference studies, or things like life insurance calculators?

What sort of methods would you accept for crime prevention. For example if there was a regression based approached comparing the value of homes vs crime rates while controlling for other variables. Or some other method if availible. Or for values of alterations of criminal patterns from home invasions and robberies to theft and burglary?

What about other societal costs? For example prevention of prison costs or social support program expenditures? Or if demonstrable, costs associated with increased deer/car accidents or the costs of paying for a culling vs hunters performing the service for free?

 

We only need to calculate crime effects. That is all that is required to ascertain how private and social costs diverge.

This doesn't make sense. Try again.

This doesn't make any sense either. If you're going to try and refer to externalities then please put some effort into it. Remember that you're going to have to refer to some aspect of overproduction or overconsumption (i.e. a market failure) to grab any sense for the thread