Well, I must disagree. Refer to this study to see why. Even applying the ceteris paribus assumption, we can conclude that the ownership and presence of guns is does not have enough correlation to be considered a prime determinant upon crime rates. This applies to both pro-gun and anti-gun advocates. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Given that this study shows how divergent the relationship between gun prevalence and crime rates is, we can conclude that less concrete and "squishy" factors such as criminal history, culture (including gun culture), social constructs, mental illness, etc. are more robust determinants.
This is a rubbish offering. Its neither an empirical study or a review of the available econometric research. To make a conclusion you need to 'up' your literature reviewing technique. Nonsense! There is no attempt to review the econometric evidence in that paper (e.g. the paper by Duggan, if my memory serves, isn't even included) as the authors simply aren't well versed in the econometric approach to criminology.
Having grown up around guns, qualified in the military with an M16 (as in assault rifle), and bought my wife a .32 cal revolver to protect herself while I'm traveling, I have lived many years thereafter with no notion to shoot someone. Where have I (and wife) gone wrong?!
Who said you have? The analysis into gun effects will refer to an elasticity of crime with respect to gun prevalence. Its a market failure issue encompassing the population
Neither author is an economist. Both are criminologists and/or lawyers. They analyze the relevant literature primarily from a simple statistical perspective, although they do analysis the econometric literature regarding the, "More Guns, Less Crime" argument. For two individuals not formally trained in the economics discipline, I say their study is of merit.
I have no problem with them. They just don't understand the literature. I do have a problem with those using their paper as evidence. And your conclusion has no merit as it does not review the econometric evidence. It picks and chooses; it therefore cannot be used to make objective conclusion
Sounds like 'liberal double speak'..but if it makes you feel better, then....btw, what was your home address again?
There have been numerous other studies since. You'll find that the bulk of the evidence supports the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis
You are so secure in your position, so what was your home address again? ....No? Would that be considered as an 'Al Gorism?' Talk and no walk.........
To a 'sane' person, do you realize how insane your argument sounds?! I believe Utopia is about 253K miles away..as in straight up. Rationalism in an irrational world is lost on you...but I'm sure you make yourself 'feel better' in your folly..gnite.
You're responding with random remark again. I adopt an evidence-based approach. You've chosen to ignore the evidence. Fair enough.. Just be honest about it
I'd like to continue entertaining you but can you give me a stat as you are so proud of touting: How many guns, hours of owning guns, are totaled for the American public vs. number of gun crimes? Then correlate for legal vs. illegal guns. I'm sure as an educated anti-gun person you have all of that at your fingertips...I'll be back 2moro to check your research....
are you still using that 1994 POS paper published in Australia for Australians? that is so lame...........................
I've already mentioned of the thread the chosen measure: elasticity of crime with respect to gun prevalence. Off you pop and try and read the evidence! It does surprise me just how unaware Americans are when it comes to their own research
Ummmmm - do you understand about statistics.....................................at all?? "hours of owning guns"?? So if a criminal owns a gun he does not use but has just purchased one he shoots someone with - then he is really innocent because he had a gun for years but did not use it? Logic oh! Logic! Wherefore art thou?
Wow.....................that's a mouthful. Thanks to your reply to the other guy, it'll be your fault that I'm going to buy another box of bullets first thing in the morning just to say I didn't shoot someone tonight.....but only to prove it to you...............Didums, your stretching now.......creating a strawman within a strawman is no small feat, but it is a strawman, just the same but......but.....but.....but...."he said it first........." .....when in fact he said nothing resembling that at all.
Whoops, shudnt have looked b4 signing off but this is too juicy: And so the amount of time having access to a gun and not using it for a crime is of no importance? The responsibility of having that access and not abusing it counts for nothing? But if one wacko steals (as in Newtown from his mother) and after hours of playing violent video games (as he was talked about doing), & fantasy-dressing as a Ninja et al, this is the gun's fault?! Would be OK if was fertilizer and he killed maybe thousands in that school?! And so if someone breaks in your house, with theft and rape on his mind, you will 'threaten him ' with "I'm calling 9-1-1 and requesting for a cop WITH A GUN! " Only a person living a fantasy life of denial could espouse such a naive viewpoint....but go ahead & pat yourself on the back for your free-thinking life-is-roses 2 YO attitude...criminals call such a person a 'sucker.'
And the actual counted defensive uses of a gun are between,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, wait for it.............................. 2-8 times out of 1000 So considering the amount of time a gun is NOT used in self defence - is it worthwhile? (Being somewhat sarcky here) http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zaman-stanizai/gun-culture-modern-society_b_1703860.html Yes - a lot of the "gun nuts" dream of being Dirty Harry but when it comes to the crunch...............................
The first link was only a brief due to me not being a subscriber. The brief stated it was of a single county. Not exactly a exhaustive research of the issue. If that was what the study consisted of. While, I have seen many estimates from 100,000(Cook) to 2.5 million(Lott) of the defensive use of firearms. The number likely lies in between the two biased researchers I mentioned. I prefer Cates who claimed 645,000 defensive uses vs 580,000 criminal misuses. A additional 215,000 times annually to defend against dangerous snakes(I prefer a rock or stick) and dangerous animals. He also claims that only 12-17% of gun armed resisters are injured. While twice as many were injured that submitted to felons without firearms. Those resisting without firearms were 3 times as likely to be injured. http://www.catb.org/ear/guns/gun-control.html He also makes suggestions for additional controls towards the end of the article. I would say I agree with him and his suggestions. It is a little old but more recent and on a larger scale than the study you posted. I will not comment on the 2nd link as would not expect you to have to answer a NRA or far-right publication.
Your link did not work but thanks anyway of doing me the courtesy of posting a link and discussing this on a research basis It is difficult to source research on the number of times guns have been used in self defence - one of the reasons I use the Huffpo article is the common sense way of describing what you would have to do to use the firearm in defence Lott's study seems fatally flawed http://www.vpc.org/studies/wher2pro.htm I am slowly amassing a list of studies showing how firearms are used in defence There is of course a reasonable body of evidence that supports an increase in homicides and suicides where there is an increase in firearms and a huge risk to the safety of children and adolescents when guns are in the home http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2481.full.pdf A 1993 study showing an increase in homicide http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 And then of course there is the Harvard Injury Control Centre http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/researc...n-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html
Sorry for the faulty link my typo. http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-control.html I agree with your analysis on Lotts study, I will review the other links.
