Ban all guns (part 2)

If your avatar is a self portrait may I ask why you are wearing clericals? Ie a pastors collar ?

Rev A

 

Therein’ is the subjective rub! What exactly is YOUR idea of an optimal policy of gun control? And who determines the optimal policy of gun control for everyone? It would vary from nation to nation IMO, and probably from state to state and county to county. So I feel that we in the USA have the best policy for the people of the USA. That said the USA's Constitution helps define what a good gun control policy should be, such as the recent SCOTUS decision that the average citizen has the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, not just a militia or military, not just the police (thank GOD!), no CITIZENS have the right to own and bear arms.

Rev A

 

My idea? Its completely based on individual preferences. There are multiple gains from gun ownership, from the sexual deviant that gets a hard-on from handling a piece to the mother using firearmss for home security problems. Its not up to me to evaluate these gains. Gun fetishism is as okay to me as someone who foolishly watches Tom Cruise movies. Optiaml gun control, within this individualism context, then becomes the same as any analysis into freedom; i.e. You can't just do what you want and trample over other people's rights. Same goes here; ignoring externalities is a coercive attack on the well-being of others. It is indicative of authoritarianism

 

Well said, Reiver.

Attention all:
THIS is the way you make a reasoned argument based on logic and critical thinking. A new concept to some of you here, I'll grant you, but something to strive for nonetheless.

 

I hope you're not a US Citizen.

 

Now, you're not even trying. Did you not see the previous post to yours?

 

Yes, YOUR IDEA. I am wondering why you so struggle with such a simple request! I want to trust you have no ulterior motive such as another debate ‘friend’ I have in atheism vs. theism type discussions. He never fails to have an ulterior motive and writes in an unfailingly straw man style that uses what he feels is a kind of covert intellectualism. Actually its anything but covert! Ha ha~

Anyway~ Ok lets try to clarify and do this again with extreme scrutiny of our words.

I asked what is your idea i.e. what is your opinion of an optimal gun control policy, or if you lived in an optimal fantasy society, where everyone loved every decision you made and it had an optimal gun control in place what would that optimal society be like? Sheesh’ can you not relate/make sense of anything other than a statistical report?

More help, according to the and dictionary

Thesaurus optimal; the best, most favorable, finest, most select, most excellent.

Dictionary; Optimal ; op·ti·mal [óptəm’l] adj best: most desirable or favorable waited for optimal weather conditions

[Late 19th century. Formed from Latin optimus “best,” literally “richest.” Ultimately from an Indo-European word meaning “to produce,” which is also the ancestor of English opus and opulent.]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Gun control (policy) is how can you be pro or con gun control?

Yes, that’s why its called an opinion, which is what I asked for.

I asked for an opinion not if there are gains etc.

Yes, that is why I asked for your OPINION of what YOU think OPTIMAL gun control would be.

I know of no sexual deviants that are second amendment or anti gun control proponents that have the kink you mention. Only liberals have serious sexual hang ups! Ha ha... with all due respect IMO the people that present serious sexual deviation seem to be liberal Pee Wee Herman hand wringing types that fear guns more than the criminal that a protective weapon ! (please no silly stats) if a criminal is crawling through my bedroom window I would rather have my .45 in my hand than a dead telephone. (rechargeble dead or line cut).

Yes one thing we can agree on, even if it has little to do with the question I asked.

It sure is if you would have answered my question. I asked what your idea of optimal gun control was. I did not ask for some kind of virtural binding contract.

?…. Let me try this again. We are not talking about sexual deviants and offhand smacks to tom cruise movie, and tom cruise fans. The latter is a purely subjective assessment. I am sure you are aware that some people think you are foolish for thinking they are foolish for watching Tom Cruise movies, ha ha...eh? You see the rub? Anyway, personally I feel Cruise is overrated as an actor, but I refuse to make blanket statements about those people that enjoy his movies. That is more in the realm of book burning and stereotyping.

No, you are incorrect for the reasons given earlier.

No one is ignoring what you call externalities! To the contrary, societies especially the more free societies I would claim pay special attention to 'externalities'. They are voted on, discussed, written in bill of rights, constitutions, the laws of the land etc! I am amazed at how you twist a thought into a nearly incomprehensible knot of deception (even if its not intentional) and make a simple thought or question a complicated mess. If you do not understand my analysis please ask me to clarify, we have a difficult time communicating it seems.

Into each law abiding and natural rights person, a little rain and authoritarianism must fall! It’s called living in the real world, which you refuse to do in many cases! Most of us get to experience it every day. Government is authoritarianism in action.

So again, what is your idea of optimal gun control?

Rev A

 

Ha, ha, ha, ~ Ahhhhhh ha, ha ....eh? That WAS a joke right? IT WASN’T???? Well, do tell! I must rebut Reivers awful assessment post haste! He did not present a reasoned argument based on logic and critical thinking, rather his statements were a transparent ploy, and he uses method to avoid the question, a technique that Reiver is an expert. Do we have any eel emotions? What about smoke and mirrors? Reivers reply deserves both to serve as a warning to other members of the nature of his reply, IMO.

Rev A

 

You haven’t understood. No problem, it might take awhile to break through your subjectivity and the tacit disregard of individualism. It is not “my idea”. That would be based on ignoring individualism and personal preferences. The only ingredient is a celebration of freedom, where the belief that we can do what we want and ignore the consequences imposed on others is an innate support for authoritarianism

Your post didn’t have much content, so I’ll ignore the blubbering elements...

Catch up will you. I have no need to refer to individual preferences; e.g. I have no need to make subjective evaluations over gun fetishism

Nope. It’s based on an objective understanding of costs imposed on others. The only subjectivity involved would be, for example, in how to value a life. However, I have no need to make an opinion on that. Such evaluations are already made, as standard, in cost-benefit analysis. I would argue that the consensus over such evaluations is likely to lead to an underestimate of costs. However, that cannot be used to suggest gun bans are somehow preferable (given the nature of personal preferences).

Of course they are. Given the Coase Theorem is irrelevant here, we’d need an appropriate license fee to internalise externalities. You don’t understand the concept. Typing without knowledge is never a good idea. Sort it out!

 

Cheers! Ultimately the gun control lobby is infected by authoritarianism. Unfortunately logic and critical thinking isn't high up on their skills set

 

Still at it with your narrow thinking and reasoning. Gun studies done in the US MUST translate into what guns do in all cultures in all parts of the world if one were to drink your "snake oil."

Your studies have been shown over and over and over again that gun control policies and gun ownership rates do not effect homocides rates the same in every part of the world.

Your misleading statement of more guns=more crime might hold true in someof your limited studies that only compared data in parts of the US in certain time periods. But you should at least provide a disclaimer.

Try saying something like "more guns=more crime" except in Switerland, Finland, Liechtenstein, Wyoming, etc., etc. or most any country or region with a Western culture w/o a large number of ethnic groups that always show an increased level of violence.

 

Still with my ability to objectively refer to the available empirical evidence.

This is a silly comment. If you can show that its only in the US that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected then be my guest. We both know you cannot.

This is a complete fib. We can refer to numerous other studies that find successful gun control measures elsewhere, such as in Canada and in Australia. Why are you making things up?

That the 'more guns=more crimes' hypothesis cannot be rejected is confirmed by objective literature review methods. I appreciate that you have a bias and therefore haven't bothered to undertake such methods, but at least be honest about it.

This amuses me. Can you refer to one empirical study that rejects the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis in Switzerland? Bet you can't!

 

No I understand you are trying your (*)(*)(*)(*)dest to not answer a simple question. You might as well stop trying to avoid me and answer! Why I ask it is not your concern! I will tell you your answer will determine the outcome of this debate, no wonder you are going to the ends of the earth bringing up vague accounting theorems and other straw man issues desperately hoping you can derail the question. You can forget those tactics and just answer the question. However I will humor your malicious ways by replying to your entire post one more time, however if you fail to answer THE question one more time I claim victory in this debate for your failure to answer. One more thing; Answer THE question! Ha ha~

We are subjective as a species. Some problems require us to be subjective, some require objectivity. I am either or when the subject or event requires it.

No you are confused. And, your world view is diametrically opposed to individualism for the simple reason of you wish for a gun control policy that would infect everyone.

Yes instead we should use our constitution, ‘social documents‘ by that I mean documents that deal with social issues etc like the Declaration of Independence, and laws of the land , or of the nation etc we find ourselves in.

You again fail to understand what is real world and what is fantasy. We can NOT do what we want. Gun and other laws and the constitution etc limits our freedoms. The only thing that is untouchable is our natural rights and law. Of course some disagree that we have natural rights etc. Anyway your answers are far to vague to rebut en detail still its possible to see that you have everything exactly reversed!

Ha ha when you answer my questions honestly and openly rather than as if you are ravaged with Alzheimer’s or old age dementia my post will have content for I will have something to go on instead of avoidance.

There is Al again. You have no idea why I asked you for your opinion on what you would consider optimal gun control. Therefore you are engaging in speculation and as you call it blubbering nonsense. If and when you answer my questions and join in the discussion I will as you call it catch up. However unless you do answer this will be a one sided talk to yourself endeavor.

Yes you are entirely correct. You have no need to engauge in both sides of a debate! If you refuse to answer questions or just prattle on taking to yourself nothing will ever be resolved! That said I have a need for you to answer the question. Its called debate/discussion/ communication.

There you go again attempting to detour the issue. No thanks for the lecture and the swami* mind reading exercise. You fail in both attempts. Indeed you have no way of knowing why I asked for your opinion. If you wanted to lecture the forum without input or debate you should go to another venue.

Urban Dictionary: swami
swami guru annabond witch mind reader psychic · 1. swami. one who is
awesome at what they do. Eddie Van Halen is a swami among guitar players. ...
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swami -

I understand the concept, and the theorem. I found it grade school simple. However, you said nothing about the Coase Theorem when you mentioned ‘externalities‘, which was a straw man attempt at discrediting my creditability etc. That only demonstrates that you were being malicious and trolish. So without the eelie and trolish avoidance, again what is your idea of optimal gun control? Again, its not up to you to guess why I am asking the question. Again this is an debate not a one sided River talking to River session, I am sure you will have plenty of time for that in the near future.

Rev A

 

The following is wrong;

my reply should have read;

Yes maybe. However I require an answer to what your idea of optimal gun control. You are confused as to why I am asking for your opinion.

Rev A

 

I'm being quite exact in my use of individualism and definition of freedom. In contrast, you're providing grunt of no interest.

There's again no content in your post! You cannot deny that you support an irrational result that ignores externalities. You can only provide low powered bluster designed to hide from your support for authoritarianism. By definition, those that argue against the internalisation of externalities (given Coase isn't relevant here as a means to find a market solution) are supporting losses through coercive relations

 

Again that is not the question. This discussion is over until you answer this;

What is your idea of optimal gun control?

It's not up to you assessing as to why I am asking, be it grunt of no intrest (to you) or grunt of interest (to me). It may make or break the debate or it may be a minor thing. You see when playing chess my lesser opponents rarely see a checkmate coming. The better players see it coming from five or more moves away. Then again I sometimes do not see a checkmate coming from my superiors (in chess). I bet you do not know why I say that eh?

Rev A

 

There isn't a discussion. You're simply giving inane bluster designed only to ignore an objective understanding of the consequences of externalities.

You're being repetitive. Its not 'my idea'. I support individualism and freedom, ensuring that optimal gun control refers simply to the internalisation of externalities

Your idea of chess is the notion that if you call a pawn a queen sufficient times you'll gain a more important piece. Its not high powered, nor will it lead to 'discussion'

 

I know a little about the Coase theorem and how you are attempting to use it and related items for your idea of optimal gun control. So yes I understand the consequences of externalities, and the defination of internalisation of externalities well enough to determine entire idea is meaningless when when used to sidestep my questiom. Its entirely out of te ball park reiver. I think a short questionnaire can demonstrate what I mean;

Optimal Gun Control for normal folk;

(1) what is your idea of optimal gun control

My idea briefly stated is I would allow all firearms and have no gun control policy if possible.

I am serious, that would be MY idea of optimal gun conrol, so I HOPE you can understand why I said that renders your ideas, your parlay into statistical nonsense and theorms etc meaningless, NOT applicable and not valid. If you think differently answer the question, or I will for you.

Rev A

 

True! I have to be. My basset hound takes 40 reps to learn a simple command. Bless his heart a hound is among the slowest of learners....

I know.

I support natural rights and the rights guaranteed by our constitution. You have very little freedom in England compared to the USA relating to owing weapons etc. What you should have been saying is that you want a perverted form of freedom.

(spelling corrected by mistake)

That does not apply to my world, because true freedom would not have the word CONTROL in it! There would be no gun control at all. No laws or very little thus no gun control to speak of. All citizens would have the right to own any type of firearm and do what they wish with it, that is freedom.

Do you play internet chess? If so I challenge you to a game with a wager.

Rev A

 

Try again! I've referred to how the Coase Theorem cannot be employed (and its primary purpose is to advertise how transaction costs hinder market solutions to more standard externality problems)

You advertise only that you don't understand the concept. Internalising externalities, by definition, is associated with optimality. You have no means to deny that (as you'd only be celebrating authoritarianism)

I already know that you support coercion (as your stance continues to be about ignoring the need to internalise externalities).

 

I believe that we should not restrict the rights to own guns. Maybe in a sense when it comes to assault rifles unless they are active shooters and it is their hobby but people should be able to own handguns. I strongly believe this mainly out of self-defense. I have read and seen many instances where people have said they had a family member die because they didn’t own a handgun and couldn’t defend themselves because it was illegal where they lived. I believe that if you restrict ownership of guns that it really wont solve to much crime. You know there are people out there that have a million ways of being able to attain guns. That would leave all those people who plan to rob or even kill people with guns and leaves everyone else hopeless and defenseless. It’s just like how they obtain illegal drugs and everything else. You know they will be able to get guns just as easily so why not just let everyone be able to have one in case a burglary or something of that content occurs? To me it makes complete sense. It even says in the second amendment that people have the right to bear arms. We shouldn’t be changing what the constitution talks about. Like I said earlier I do agree with restricting the rights to own very high powerful weapons such as assault rifles and maybe even some automatic handguns like a glock. Statistics have shown that death rate has decreased with the presence of firearms. This fact alone should be a deciding factor in whether or not to constraint gun control. Yes I do see the possible side affects of owning a gun. What if your child finds it accidently shoots it? What if they person owning has mental issues? Well to that I say if someone has mental health issues then they should not be aloud to own a gun. That doesn’t exclude the rest of the world though. To answer the child finding it question, that just falls on the person owning the gun. They know to keep it on safety and to put it in a safe and secure spot that is out of reach for children. I really don’t see any valid argument to restrict gun laws to a point where normal citizens can’t own them. It doesn’t make any sense when you think about. People need protection, and yes this is an extreme measure but the world we live in today calls for that. Every 14 seconds a U.S. house is broken into. Sixty percent of the time the house is occupied while it is occurring and thirty eight percent of the robberies are committed with a gun. Now for me I know I would want to be able to have the protection if I felt like I needed it. You never know what could happen when someone breaks into your house. That’s just my two cents though.

 

Sorry, but there is more than enough evidence to shoot down your false hypothesis that more guns=more crime. You continue to hide behind the findings of your very select "peer reviewed" studies, and tend to reject the mountians of evidence that abound that prove these studies to be false. No reasoned, no logical, and no other person that claims to support the scientific method can ignore the facts that the mere presence of guns themselves in the hands of individual citizens is NOT a significant factor in the number of homocides in a given area.

at: www.heuni.fi/ paper 64 You can find their International Statistics on Crime and Justice for 2010. I would assume they would at least attempt to be honest in their findings. But, possibly not having the blessing of one the high priests in the fields of Sociology, Psychology or Economics, you may find this work to be heresy.

If you bother to look at the paper...on figure 1 page 9, you see the rates of homocide around the world. Notice the rates are highest in Africa and lowest in Europe. An intelligent person would know that counties with pathetic access to healthcare would also have a culture that would not be effective collecting statistics on murders that would be typically more commonplace in these countries.

Figure 3 page 11 shows just how pathetic and limited the data is for the killings going on in Africa. South Africa may be about the only country there with reliable data. With the abundance of violent and corrupt leaders, child soldiers and bodies left to rot on the streets, one can fill in the blanks on the homocides there. If any of your "peers" were to travel to most any country in Sub-Shara Africa and attempt to gather information on crime and gun ownership rates they would probably be shot as spies.

Figure 5 page 14 shows Europe's homocide rate. Notice how there is no correlation between countries with strict gun laws and those that do not have as many restrictions. The UK has one of the most restrictive, yet is higher than Switzerland, with one of the most relaxed.

There are vastly more guns in Switzerland than places like the UK and Luxemburg, yet the homocide rate is lower for the Swiss. How can that be? According to GunSite.com, 14% of the Swiss have a fully automatic assault rifle in their house, with ammo.

If you believe that guns cause a pyschological effect on their housemates to kill others, then wouldn't the more evil guns like the machine guns cause more of an effect? How about the collective power of guns? Does having one gun in a house cause the same homocidal effect as having 100? Wouldn't it be, according to your pseudo-scientific peers doing the gun studies you covet, that gun collectors with hundreds and thousands of weapons in their own homes all be serial killers?

Some of the gun control studies you shared want to mix suicides with homicides to demonize guns. The mere fact that suicides are so much higher in Japan with virtually no private firearms, than most any place in the rest of the world, completely obliterates your theory for guns "causing" more suicides.

I would think in a liberal forum you would have more support, but your ideas are just too radical to be taken seriously by your support group.

 

Its possible to adopt corrupt methods and refer to the odd paper that does not support the hypothesis. However, that is alien to objective literature review methods. For example, you could refer to Lott's work. You'd have to forget the papers that dismiss the methodology used as flawed.

I don't expect a consensus on this issue. It is quite possible to find zero effect because of econometric bias. That merely means one should refer to all of the literature, typically using multiple journal search engines to ensure that all papers are covered. And that, without any doubt, leads to a simple question: the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. To pretend otherwise would only show a lack of objectivity and the curse of ideological limitation.

This is a fib! I refer to all studies. That the bulk rejects your stance is but a simple truth. Its that reality that always leads to the anti-intellectualism

The more pertinent question is 'why are you boring me with raw data?'. Anyone that has perused this literature would know we have to refer to studies that have isolated gun effects.

You haven't made a comparison capable of isolating the gun effect. Can you refer to one study that achieves that? If not, then you're peddling spurious conclusion deliberately. A standard flaw in those that haven't bothered to refer to the evidence!

Guns are found to have effects on both homicide rates and suicide rates. Not surprisingly therefore, studies will consider both. Others of course will refer to the issues separately. Note that the results are robust.

Another silly attempt at spurious conclusion. Why are you making such tediously low brow errors?

 

The studies you have given me do not even attempt to study worldwide effects. They take data from Western nations and others with high cultures, then try to "control" for all the other "variables" just to isolate the gun effects. I haven't seen any data that I can plug from your studies and have them explain worldwide homicide rates. I have no reason not to believe your studies have spurious conclusions.

I believe your more guns=more crime hypothesis is the height of "low brow" reasoning. Talk about using a broad brush!

If you were to use the logic of one of your studies, what variables would you isolate that could possibly explain the differences in murder rates for the UK, Switzerland, Luxembourg, etc.---among other countries in Western Europe?

There are for a fact more guns in Switzerland than in Luxembourg. Homicide is lower with the Swiss. The people and cultures are very similar. The gun laws are very different. What studies are there to prove your theory in this case?

 

Worldwide analysis wouldn't make sense. There would be all sorts of problems created through data limitations. Not surprisingly, econometric analysis tends to refer to disaggregated data; using that to ensure sufficient variation in dependent and independent variable.

You're whinging about nothing

I'm more than happy for you to refer to a study that considers Switzerland. Why haven't you? (Note: it wouldn't make sense to include a country such as Britain as the handgun rate was low)

Now there is international comparison that includes Switzerland. However, that refers specifically to suicide analysis. You'd know this if you had bothered to review the evidence before deciding your conclusion