Stephen Paddock - Legally Purchased 33 Rifles in one Year

He has no credentials. He knows how to google, that's it.

 

Gun control to me is to internalise the externality associated with crime effects. Cook and Ludwig, for example, did a good job in measuring social costs associated with gun prevalence.

Why can't you refer to one empirical analysis that supports your position on gun control? Why do you dodge?

 

Shame a lot of pro-gunners can't even manage that!

 

actually that is really stupid. the duty is upon you to prove that such increased restrictions on honest people will deter criminals the burden is on freedom vandals not those who advocate for more liberty.

 

those are weasel words and are worthless here. you googled something you don't understand. that is something an economist who has no clue about crime would spew

 

What gun control do you think will significantly reduce gun violence stats that are primarily jacked up by inner city urban areas? Gun control is broad term.

 

So you can't actually refer to one piece of empirical evidence that supports your position on gun control? Crikey, that's pathetic

 

what do you for a living? your econ mumbo jumbo proves to me you really don't understand this issue.

the costs of gun crime impose on society is mainly caused by those who are not inconvenienced by gun control laws. so those externalities are not being assigned to those that impose the costs. so the ecoBS is just that

 

Don't need to. We live it and have life experience on our side. That's the difference between us.

 

For an expert you don't seem to know much on this issue. I referred to the evidence and constructed a relevant conclusion over what optimal gun control entails. In comparison, you dodge. Isn't that the truth about you fellows? You have opinion and nothing more. You haven't even bothered to support your opinion with evidence, instead relying on similar "I likes your opinion I does" to attempt mindless justification?

 

when I asked him to define gun control we get a googled ecoBS line that has no relevance. gun control does not make those who impose costs on society pay for them. gun control punishes a large group that rarely misuses guns for the costs imposed by people who are not impacted by gun control laws at all.

 

Entrepreneur. But how is that relevant? Notice how, when asked a simple question over evidence, you go on the offensive and aimlessly attack.

Its a shame that evidence-based comment is so alien to the 'experts'...

 

Only someone who knows little would call evidence as having no relevance! That's the point isn't it? You're not interested in evidence at all are you?

 

you are pretending to actually understand this issue by throwing out academic BS from studies you really don't understand

why don't you

1) tell us if there is any argument for gun control other than the CLAIMS it decreases crime

2) then tell us if it is UNDISPUTED that gun control decreases crime even though the DUKE study denied that background checks do anything of the sort and there is no evidence that the clinton gun ban did anything worthwhile either

3) and tell us what specific laws you claim would make us safer

4) and then you are left with a value judgment that this speculation of more safety outweighs harassing millions upon millions of people who really aren't causing problems

 

because you are what I call a google warrior. You don't know anything about guns, you haven't prosecuted criminals, you haven't spent hours listening to wire taps of criminals setting up contract murders to eliminate witnesses or rivals, you haven't sat face to face with someone who just shot someone and have them say this to you

"yeah if you feds catch me with a gun I do five years but if those M%)##F(%kers catch me without one, I get a pine box"

rather you throw out academese that really have nothing to do with this issue

when I asked you what you think gun control will do the proper answer is claiming it will decrease crime

and you cannot prove that will happen beyond a reasonable doubt
You cannot prove that will happen with clear and convincing evidence
you cannot even prove that will happen under a more likely than not standard

so you have nothing else. and when I see a foreigner so adamant about restricting OUR rights, I find the public safety claims to be completely BS. there is something else behind this fanaticism

 

Standard anti-intellectualism. To suggest that evidence is BS is nonsensical. It only describes a position that is based on ignorance.

Not for me, but I know the US originally thought differently (such as using gun control as part of a racist outlook)

You're asking for repetition. We know that there is no consensus. However, we know that the literature review will support the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis.

Already done so. I would impose a fee relevant to the crime externality generated by the crime effects.

The only value judgement in the analysis is the value of a life, given 'more guns=more deaths' cannot be rejected.

 

I call you inefficient. You type a lot and say nothing. I don't use google for research. Better to use the search engines designed to ensure a complete literature review. But that's not the point. The point is, when asked to provide just one paper in support of your position, you couldn't. That demonstrates zero knowledge.

 

Why do you have such a tough time in actually telling us what

1) specific laws will reduce crime and why

2) and why interfering with the rights of millions is worth the cost

3) and why those specific laws (externalities is not a specific law) will actually increase safety based on what studies

4) and why those laws don't violate the second and or tenth amendments

and most important of all-why do you obsess over our laws in a country you don't matter in

 

He never provides evidence. But he sure expects it

 

Trolls are like that.

 

Why are you being dishonest? I've referred specifically to specific laws (through reference to fees to internalise externalities). I've referred specifically to the social costs from gun prevalence. I have also referred to multiple studies that show how gun control generates positive effects. And I don't give a toss about how you refer to the constitution to limit debate (particularly as gun control was originally used against blacks).

Obsess? Its not an important issue for me. Perhaps that is why I can refer to the evidence without any problem and why you can't refer to justone paper?

 

It is rejected based on the fact that in the USA over the last 25 years, the number of guns, especially the ones that scare gun haters the most-magazine fed semi automatics-have increased tremendously and millions of Americans are carrying concealed weapons over the number carrying 25 years ago and yet gun crime has DECREASED.

all the bs studies aside that is UNDENIABLE

 

An anti-intellectual then and nothing more.

 

As you know, the anti-gun left doesn't care about the truth.

 

You misspelled pro gun right