That neatly describes the problem. You're not aware of how to define rational gun control. Given I follow a methodological individualist approach ultimately based on celebrating personal benefits, I know that rational gun control refers to reacting to coercion generated by personal preferences. Individualism does seem to be a problem for the pro-gunners though
Please don't fib. I've been quite exact: a methodological individualism approach based on defending basic rights by reacting to the coercive relationships created by our personal preferences
I've defined it. You must therefore be struggling with the concepts being used. Take individualism. Within this context we can refer to the numerous benefits from gun ownership. However, we can also refer to spillover costs. The latter is certainly a form of coercion. Here, that coercion refers to crime (all the way to the ultimate attack on rights, i.e. homicide). Gun control that doesn't take into account these benefits and costs will, by definition, be irrational as- by ignoring coercive relations- it will create a deadweight loss and harm well-being
Ayuh,... Bullship... You refuse to acknowledge that the PROBLEM has Nothing, NOTHING at All to do with Guns, but is the (*)(*)(*)(*)in' morons who steal 'em, 'n do harm with guns... Yer Bullship papers don't look for the actual Problem but instead lay blame on the guns...
I'd accept that if the evidence indicated it. It doesn't. Of course understanding behavioural changes and also market spillover effects is sufficient to explain why your position is based on hot air Its a problem of dissonance. Given the evidence doesn't support your dogma, you are forced to reject the evidence (without rationale)
Ayuh,... God forbid, but yer "Papers" don't show what's actually happening, On the Ground... in Real Life... They're pure Hype, 'n fictional fantasy... As, Any Fact that can't be proven, in REAL Life circumstances, sure as 'ell Ain't fact, at All...
They ensure that we avoid dogma, tabloidism, spurious conclusion and bias. These are all valuable for the scientific process and ensure that one can argue with validity
Absolute facts? You mean tabloidism, spurious relationship and dogma. You need to break free from such limitations and refer to the evidence with objectivity
