How are observations biased ? Called objective v subjective, what you chart, patient information, vital signs, patient condition, are all objective and free of bias. Not opinion.
"My personal experience is more important than yours" twins uselessness and arrogance. If they want to blubber about the inconvenience of quantitative analysis, you'd at least expect some good sense and focus on the qualitative research (or mixed methods if they're mr fancy-pants).
The day the research can prove that law abiding citizens are buying guns then running out and committing crimes, I will get on board with complete gun control.
The theory of deterrence is indeed understood. However it is also understood that laws do not deter those that knowingly violate them, and are aware of the statistical odds, and the lack thereof, of facing any actual, meaningful consequences of their actions in the legal system, where laws go routinely unenforced, sentences are suspended, and probation for serious offenses have become the norm, where punishment exists in name only. The response times of law enforcement are growing longer, not shorter, meaning those committing violent acts have a wide window of opportunity to commit the crime and leave before they are ever discovered by the proper authorities.
Was not personal experience as a nurse cited by yourself as reason for supporting the firearm-related restrictions in the nation of Australia?
Deterrence works on the margin. Indeed, it doesn't demand zero crime (as it's optimally based on equating marginal benefits and marginal costs)
Deterrence is an old concept that began with Nuclear Arms capability, the U.S. used them first of course in testing phases, and against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It must also be pointed out that other bombing efforts also yielded frightful effects as did those affecting Dresden. The attendant Arms race of acquisitions of Nuclear capabilities by the Soviets and other Nations as Deterrent defines that particular strategy contrasts M.A.D. as the principle factor involved as far as unilateral decision on first strike engagement countered by retaliatory strikes resulting in M.A.D. Personal defense firearms chiefly handguns are mentioned as a Deterrence factor as it relates to concealed carry as the numbers of people carrying concealed increases, it is hard to know who is not potentially carrying a concealed weapon ie handguns, I remember hearing two guys and one of them joked: "Man, you can't even mug nobody no more, too many cats got a gun license and no problem shootin you.." Portland Oregon. It is widely debated by both sides of the issue, if concealed carry permits do equate a detterence factor or not, and the closest equivalent is: "We cannot tell" and I add the word conclusively.
Basic error. Deterrence is standard economics and therefore.goes back, in terms of how it's applied today, to the origins of neoclassicalism. MAD is an application of game theory and therefore much more specific. It's not even a good reference to deterrence, given any of the players who acquires a first strike capability then has an incentive to launch
Which is a contradiction as was pointed out succinctly in the story fail safe, and later in the movie War Games, first strike is moot if automated retaliatory strikes result in Mutually Assured Destruction, or M.A.D. in other words, a Nuclear Winter and no Winners only loosers. War is not a game even though War Games are enacted to play out specific battle strategies.
You merely inform me that you don't understand MAD. It is, by definition, a reference to game theory (going back to Von Neumann's contributions). And it's factual to note that the game theory involved is unstable. A first strike capability eliminates the deterrence equilibrium. This isn't up to debate. This is just fact.
No ? The first strike ability, made possible by short range attack either by parking a Submarine within instant strike distance as opposed to I.C.B.M. use requiring a long fuel up period. It was no strange thing to see Soviet vessels, highly modified fishing trawlers being caught in various North Eastern ports in the 1970s.... Maine etc... The idea was a First strike was indeed possible taking out Washington D.C. and other strategic complexes, and the idea to cope with that scenario, an Automated response triggered by the President, just before dashing off to Iron Mountain. Once set in motion, an Automated retaliatory strike would completely annihilate the Soviet Union leaving a virtual Nuclear Winter, the gift that keeps on giving as evidenced today in Japan as residual effects of post Nuclear Radiation still has effects today. Nuclear War is truly a no win situation in view of Today's Nuclear capabilities.
I'm not interested in your attempt at pretending knowledge. You've already failed. You didn't know that MAD is a game theory approach. You don't know what that game theory entails. And you don't know how a first strike capability shifts the outcome to a nuclear incentive. And of course you started by making erroneous comment that deterrence theory is derived from MAD etc.
The first strike capabilty was a legitimate fear and M.A.D. was the concept to negate or make it a moot point.
Rude? I've merely acknowledged the severity of your errors. I appreciate that might create dissonance, but you really should think about improving your knowledge on the subject. When you achieve that, I look forward to your apology
Again with the error. MAD refers to how any use of nuclear weapons is deemed to be irrational. Once a first strike capability is available, there cannot be any deterrence. Indeed, given payoffs change due to being able to strike without retaliation, there is automatically a nuclear incentive.
I will happily apologize to you out of respect, as I respect your academic standing as a University Professor. But I am not wrong in basic understanding of Nuclear Deterrence, and in any case, Admiral Gordon Wells U.S.N. Ret... an old freind of the family used to discuss that topic with me often.
You're confusing me with someone else again. You do have a habit of making stuff up about me. Perhaps you should stop? Again, there's no debate in this. You got MAD wrong. You didn't know that its game theory. You didn't know how that game theory changes dramatically once a first strike capability is available.
First strike capability is a moot issue. Do you even know what Nation has the finest Nuclear capability ? Hint, not the U.S. number 110 is the clue. First strike is meaningless as it only insures Full retaliatory strike including Allied Nations. G.T.N.W. The ultimate no win scenario. The War to end all Wars.
A ridiculous claim. The point is simple: MAD is not a stable equilibrium. First strike shifts outcomes from deterrence to incentive. The problem is that you don't understand MAD and its game theory nature. You therefore have to rely on cliche
Pray tell what relevance does such have with regard to the possibility that legal firearm ownership is actively deterring criminal acts from being committed against members of the public?
I didn't bring up MAD. That was the other fellow as he made ludicrous claims over the origins of deterrence theory.
Then there was no need on the part of yourself to get involved with such a discussion regarding mutually assured destruction. You allowed yourself to be dragged into an off topic discussion.
It wasn't off topic, it was just wrong. He made the bogus claim that deterrence theory derives from MAD
Then it the claim was indeed "bogus" as is being asserted by yourself, there was little need to do anything beyond demonstrate the true origins of the deterrence theory, and move on from there.
That was not my claim. The concept of Deterrence began with Nuclear Defense. It was later applied to personal defense.
