That's clearly untrue. Cook and Ludwig find significant increases in crime rates, as demonstrated by the increase in social costs. One wouldn't necessarily expect guns to increase the rate of biscuit stealing, but one never knows! The focus on homicides is a clear example of 'more guns=more crime' Through the use of a proxy measure, given we can disaggregate the data further, we actually have improvements in the estimation technique. The author of course tests for the robustness of the proxy. We can reject this paper as it uses, with some minor twists, the same techniques as Lott and Mustard. This methodology is biased, as demonstrated by Rubin and Dezhbakhsh (2003, The effect of concealed handgun laws on crime: beyond the dummy variables, International Review of Law & Economics, Vol. 23, pp 199-217) Skipped through it. It lacks the econometric methodologies required to test this issue. Note also that they are Lott's chums (wonder why they took his name off the working paper) See above! This is a poor choice because of two aspects; first, it uses a dummy variable approach shown to be biased; second, we can't use it to discount the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis and the support received by the likes of Gius. That would be inaccurate. As long as hypothesis testing is followed, there is one clear interpretation. The issue is of course: there is no such thing as a perfect study. However, this just means that we should adopt literature review methods. And I have! That ensured a change in my perspective, given I'm from a gun owning background. The difference in our response is that I haven't been completely reliant on Lott. I'm surprised you didn't go with Kleck. More variation? Much more credible! Your original comment, however, continues to be wrong. The evidence is against you. However, I look forward to you providing a non-Lott offering. Please make sure its econometric based so we can compare and contrast. For example, can you show that Duggan's proxy isn't robust? Can you show that Cook and Ludwig failed to check for reverse causation etc etc etc
Unfortunately,it appears you're gullible,No way they can accurately predict agun owner being more likely to be a victim of crime..
It wasn't an inaccurate claim,And ANY source would be secondaryI wouldn't expect the paper to be critical of itself....
Hmmm... According to an article in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz state that -- "Incidents where victims use a gun defensively are almost never gunfights where both parties shoot at one another. Only 24% of the incidents involved the defender firing their gun, and only 16% involved the defender shooting at their adversary. In only 4.5% of the cases did the offender shoot at the defender. Consequently, it is not surprising that only 3% of all the incidents involved both parties shooting at each other." How can someone be over 4 times more likely to be shot in an assault, when only 7.5% of the cases of defensive gun use involve the offender shooting at the victim?
We have stats that say its possible to get shark bit in Tennessee too. If an armed someone is crawling through a window I would rather have a firearm than a telephone, stats be dammed. Its like some gun control advocates sayin' they would rather be unarmed in the VA school shootings!!! Yes that is brilliant, allow the criminal to possess a weapon. To my way of thinking it demonstrates how nutty some of the more radical Gun control advocates are. Rev A
Lone, save your intelligence for someone who will admit when he is wrong and can think outside of his UK, Orwellian, freedom lacking, box. (The king should poke just a few more air holes in that box to allow UK types to think more clearly IMO). Anyway; You are correct in that ANY evidence is libel to be corrupt etc. Add to that fact that attempting to apply stats, studies and methods to apply and such to many diverse populations never works well in all or even most real life situations. Lastly I live in a nation that gives me the right to keep and bear firearms with an latitude of freedom that someone like Reiver can not hope to understand. (ie why freedom is much more important than an abstract statistical idea). In other words ; "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety ". Benjamin Franklin. INDEED! Rev A
One never uses stats. One uses empirical methodologies to test hypothesis. You've been told this countless times so no excuses!
Kleck and Gertz direct the respondent deliberately by asking whether a gun has been used in self-defence. On the face of it, this may seem an improvement on earlier studies which only refer to what respondents did (i.e. they made no direct reference to the possibility of gun use). However, in reality, it increases the problems created through false reporting. Indeed, the subsequent improvement in measurement methods offered by Cook and Ludwig (1998, Defensive gun uses: New evidence from a national survey, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 14, pp. 111131) suggests that there are inconsistencies in about 1/3 of the defensive gun use reports (a decidedly dodgy result when using relatively small polls).
I'm stunned that you'd say that! How do you think the sports book in a casino calculates odds? I think you've become so dependent upon inferential statistics and heteroskedastics that you've forgotten what descriptive statistics are. The basketball player walks to the line to make a free throw - I don't need a methodology to test the hypothesis of whether or not s/he'll make the shot, I merely use the descriptive statistics and look at their current percentage.
And another failure to refer to the topic! Put it right and refer to the original comment (rather than blustering): Kleck and Gertz direct the respondent deliberately by asking whether a gun has been used in self-defence. On the face of it, this may seem an improvement on earlier studies which only refer to what respondents did (i.e. they made no direct reference to the possibility of gun use). However, in reality, it increases the problems created through false reporting. Indeed, the subsequent improvement in measurement methods offered by Cook and Ludwig (1998, Defensive gun uses: New evidence from a national survey, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 14, pp. 111131) suggests that there are inconsistencies in about 1/3 of the defensive gun use reports (a decidedly dodgy result when using relatively small polls).
Okay im just going to insert my opinion. Gun crimes do happen, but are guns the reason they happen? No, the criminal already had the desire to commit the crime, and they probally would continue even if there wasnt a gun within their reach, they would just use a bat to assault their target.
You're assuming that guns have perfect substitutes. The evidence suggests otherwise, both in terms of suicide and in terms of violent crime (i.e. there is evidence of behavioural changes)
You're assuming that guns have perfect substitutes. The evidence suggests otherwise, both in terms of suicide and in terms of violent crime (i.e. there is evidence of behavioural changes) I never said anything of the sort, what i really said is that a gun does not decide if it is going to do something illegal, the person does. The gun does bring confidence yes, but their not going to stop the crime just because they have to use a knife or bat. At that point they just have to change their strategy.
And in all truth, if someone was going to consider suicide i'd prefer that they would have a gun. Otherwise it would be messy.
i never said it would be a perfect substitute, i never said it would be easier to do it without a gun, i just said that even if there was no gun the crime would still happen,most likely.
You should be more careful with your language. "They would just use a bat to assault their target" certainly implies perfect substitution. In truth, we know that there aren't perfect substitutes. The evidence, not surprisingly, therefore finds negative crime effects (particularly with the extent of violent crime and the social costs thereby imposed on the population)
You sir, are twisting what i really said to fit it to your conclusion, either that or you obviously do not understand what im saying. I merely said that they would improvise the weapon, i didnt say it would guarentee success or failure compared to a gun. If you dont mind me asking, are you a supporter of gun control or are you just providing your reason?
No, I'm merely using the English language. Its good, however, that you accept that guns do not have perfect substitutes. That is the first stage in understanding how gun prevalence increases suicide and crime deaths I am rational and therefore a supporter of gun control. There is no other option. The debate is over the form and severity of those controls
Believe? I adopt an evidence based position. For example, there is a need for a price correction with gun owners facing an annual license fee
