You'd have a point if it was 'one man, one island'. It isn't. Gun control is focused on interaction and possible coercion: from general crime effects to the consequences of bounded rationality
Fear? That's restricted to gun owners who are behaving according to the predictions of the 'fear and loathing' hypothesis
Why are you against our Constitution? Our Constitution clearly provides for the Rule of Law. The fact that some criminals won't obey certain laws is irrelevant to this.
The fact that some criminals won't obey certain laws is exactly the point of the comic and the related satirical post. Did you not get it? I typed slow.
True, there were laws during colonial days requiring gun ownership, for example, requiring white men to carry them to church, because of the particular concern that Indians would attack on Sunday. There were laws passed requiring militia eligible men own guns. All of those are gun control laws. http://books.google.com/books?id=Fc...6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gun control 1600's&f=false
I'm not particularly interested in the comic, unless you wrote it. What I find far more relevant is your own words in your OP. Unless you've forgotten, you said: "Gun control defined:The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm." Lest you forgot, this statement, along with your "comic" implies that gun control laws are unnecessary and ineffective because some criminals won't obey them. When you follow this argument logically you see its flaw which I defined for you above. I'm not surprised you didn't realize this, but this should not stop you from trying to follow along. If we were to only allow laws on the books that criminals obeyed, then you might as well throw the whole Constitution out the window, because this approach is completely contrary to the Framers intent. Nice try though.
I guess I didn't type slow enough or you just don't understand satire (Google is your friend). Come on down off the short bus and I'll explain it to you: The whole topic of gun control, regulation, whatever you call it - has people on pretty much two sides of the issue. Those who are for "regulation", like me, who think it's OK to regulate the sales, training requirements for carrying and carrying laws as they fit with the 2nd amendment. Then there are those who advocate gun "control" - which are typically liberals who don't think people are responsible enough to own a weapon, much less walk around in public with one. They want to "control" gun use outside of the 2nd amendment. (That's part of the US Constitution in case you didn't catch that) - they want to do away with a law-abiding citizen's right to bear arms and create gun-free "zones" - wherein, no guns = no crime. I say all that to point out the satire (hope you Googled that word by now) in my post. I hope you get it now cuz I can't type any slower.
Whoa there, fella. Now you're moving the goalposts. Satire or not, those are your own words I quoted for you, and they are the only words in your OP that were your own. First you called it a "comic", and now you chose to call it "satire". This is unimportant. The Opening Post is intended (in case you didn't know) to put forth a point of view (hopefully supported by evidence) that can be discussed or debated here. Even though your OP falls somewhat short of this, I WAS attempting to draw out a discussion from you based on your own words and position. I had not suspected that you would fold up and run from your own words and move the goalposts to some other argument as if it were your original intent. Perhaps you'd like to start over and start another thread with a more suitable OP? If not, then why not defend your own OP here? I thought accountability to be a hallmark of Conservative values. What say you? Apparently you need to bone up a little on the facts. It's inane for you to now set up this elaborate straw man that is simply not true. So many of you here are swinging at monsters in the dark as if someone were secretly out to get you. Amazing.
Interesting spin, friend. Let me fully understand your position. Please explain the difference between a gun control law and a gun regulation law. Hopefully this won't be a convenient bit of semantics.
I told you I cannot type any slower for you. I cannot make you understand what you choose not to understand. The post is extremely clear. You seem to be the only one having a problem understanding it. This topic may be above your grade level.
No,what's apparently tough is expecting you to look back in this thread for te answer I already gave to your question.
Criminology is all down to me? Nice idea but sadly I can't take credit for this multidiscline approach.
Not made up but seriously misapplied. The terminology in question comes from a single study. Studies to test this hypothesis were inconclusive. Worth noting, also, is that two of the authors from that publication that initially believed that strict gun control reduced crime later amended their position. http://defmech.blogivists.com/2009/...ght-and-rossi-armed-citizens-deter-criminals/ And in another publication talking about the "fear and loathing" hypothesis. "Fear and loathing is one possible explanation that is neither confirmed nor ruled out by these data. Nonetheless, Newton and Zemring's Detroit chart is commonly cited in the pro-control literature as nearly definitive proof on the fear and loathing point." Reiver is another internet pseudo-intellectual pontificating research that is decades out of date to support their position. Easily dismissed.
Completely wrong. Its one of several general hypothesis used in the literature as potential explanations for the data relationships. You need to read the literature, rather than blindly googling convenient secondary sources. Start with a search engine like science direct
Yawn. Predictable you are. Here's more on that "hypothesis"... "Thus, the source most commonly cited in the literature as demonstrating a fear and loathing effect turns out to contain virtually no evidence at all pointing to such a conclusion. At best, the evidence is ambiguous and the stated conclusions premature." Endearingly childlike that you would hang on to such a tenuous and unsupported hypothesis.
You do entertain! You've made some basic errors though. First, you state that the hypothesis comes from one study. That is incorrect. It is derived from well known criminology theory after all. Second, once you let the cat out of the bag (and refer to other studies that analyse it), you make the classic error of assuming that- just because it is not an accepted hypothesis- it is useless. One never accepts hypothesis, particularly with the competing hypothesis avaikable. Take simple deterrence theory. Would I reject Becker and Ehrlich rational choice approach just because some studies do not find significant effects from the death penalty? Of course not. That would be anti-intellectual and quite alien to the empirical approach
I caught that a while back when he started parroting the kellerman study....it's not that he makes it up, he just draws his own conclusions about the data
