How to go about bringing anti-2A folks around

Sounds like you don't quite understand what externalities mean. The distinction between private costs and social costs, for both car ownership and gun ownership, is confirmed by the evidence.

Nope. The analysis, by definition, includes any potential positive externalities. For example, the econometric methods employed do not assume that the coefficients on gun variables must necessarily be negative. The likes of possible deterrence effects are necessarily included.

This just confirms that you don't understand the concept. It must be understood in terms of the market

 

Nope. Why are you asking me such nonsensical questions? I don't support gun bans

 

I understand what externalities are. I asked you what coercion was being produced by MY handguns. Unlike my car, there have been no actual, negative costs to the public from my firearms.

You have not cited any such analysis. And, again, I began this by asking about MY handguns. The only actual externalities from these handguns have been positive. No negative externalities have occured.

So, in order to explain why MY guns are somehow coercive, you have to avoid talking about my guns and talk about someone else's? And you get to claim net negative externalities without providing any proof?

 

You clearly don't, as illustrated by your previous post and its inability to refer to the market. By hiding from the market and attempting to glory your handguns in isolation you show contempt for the whole notion. It has to be understood as a market phenomena as it refers ultimately to how supply and demand equilibrium can harm overall well-being.

Search my previous posts. I've referenced dozens of articles. I've bothered to review the literature. You haven't, as advertised by your erroneous positive externalities attempt

I refer to externalities correctly and note that its about the market. Bit obvious really

 

And if you can provide proof, we can discuss it. Until then, I'm not hiding from the market, you are hiding behind it.

Feel free to link to them. You are the one making a claim. If you want to back them up, do so. If you don't, then don't.

Right, because the only reason I could possibly disagree with you is if I had not read enough. Now, do you have any evidence or not?

I asked you what negative externalities my choice had. You are referencing (or, rather, not referencing) the externalities of the legality of handguns has over all.

And since you are not only the one making a claim of net negative externalities, the burden of proof is on you.

Please, by all means, prove that handguns are net negative.

 

You again show no understanding of the concept of externalities. Teach yourself the basics and then get back to me

That I've referenced dozens of articles is but truth. That you cannot refer to any of it only describes to me that you're not interested in reviewing the literature.

There's always opportunity for empirical debate. I would certainly trumpet Kleck as a researcher that knows what they are talking about. I just know Kleck is in a minority because I've reviewed the evidence. Why haven't you? From Duggan to Cook/Ludwig to the latest offerings like Gius, why are your comments just whine?

I'm referring to externalities correctly: it refers to a market analysis into the distinction between private and social costs. You ignore that analysis because you're inherently don't understand what externalities entail

See, for example, this paper

 

Typical revisionist response from you. I'm still hoping you'll decide to participate here fairly and honestly.

 

Wow! Can't you all just smell the PROJECTIONSIM?!

 

Save the grunt and use the spare time to read some of the evidence?

 

I only took two semesters of Econ, but I aced both and tutored them later. But apparently distinguishing between potential and actual costs means that I don't know what externalities are

When someone makes a claim in a debate, it is generally their burden to provide proof of what they claim. But apparently asking for said proof is evidence that the requester has no interest in reviewing the evidence?

Look, I have no intention of seeing a claim and then digging through a person's previous posts to see if they have referenced proof of that claim elsewhere. That's ridiculous.

Right. Because, again, by disagreeing with you I must not have researched the subject.

Whoa, stop right there. What analysis am I ignoring and when did you offer said analysis in this thread? And I never said anything to contradict this definition of externalities, I only made the further distinction of actual and potential externalities.

Which you assume solely based on the fact that I disagree with you.

Finally. Now that you've actually offered some sort of analysis, you can claim that I am ignoring it if I continue debating with you without addressing the claims inside.

 

Then you really have no excuse for your misinterpretation of externalities

Actually your reference to 'you', rather than the 'market', ensured that!

Having to repeat references again and again to people that aren't actually interested in the evidence is a bit of a chore. Perhaps you can use your wonderful economics knowledge to critique the Cook and Ludwig paper? Wouldn't that be splendid!

Nope, making basic errors whilst ignoring the available evidence tells me that.

No, you rambled on about your guns rather than referring to externalities correctly (i.e. an understanding of a market failure)

I doubt you'll manage any critique of the paper

 

You have yet to show any misinterpretation. And, no, speaking of the specific externalities of my own individual purchasing decisions does not mean that I do not understand that there exists larger externalities.

I brought up myself because of your original quote, which claimed negative consequences for our purchasing decisions. You were the one who brought up the subject of individuals whenever you said that. I am denying that, in my specific case, there have been any negative externalities resulting from my purchasing decision.

Are you honestly going to pretend that the word "externality" can ONLY refer to market-wide consequences caused by ALL people who made similar purchasing decisions and can NEVER refer to the social consequences of an INDIVIDUAL purchase?

Seriously? Even the example you gave of the car was an example of an individual purchase and the broader consequences resulting from it.

You see, I had been taught that an externality is a cost absorbed by an outside party resulting from an exchange that they did not partake in themselves. That's the way it was defined in my Econ class and that's the way I've always heard it defined.

If you are going to make the claim, it is up to you to provide the evidence. I'm sorry if that is exhausting.

I'm taking the time to read and consider it. I'm glad you finally took the time to back up your claim with some sort of evidence. It is a little embarrassing to accuse people of ignoring data that you never provided, but now that you have provided it, isn't that splendid!

Care to point out an actual error? And what evidence have I ignored?

I rambled on about my guns because you brought up our decision in firearms. Silly me.

If I made a purchase that inflicted a cost on someone else, would that or would that not be an externality? Because so far that seems to be the "mistake" you are going on and on about: using the word "externality" in a more limited scope. I guess this means my Econ professors were completely ignorant of economics as well.

I'm taking the time to read it and trying to find responses from other academic sources.

Are you going to be prepared to discuss it if I do or are you just going to continue to favor personal attacks over debate?

 

BTW, my use of the term "externality" to refer to the social costs and benefits of my own, individual, private purchase matches the definition provided here perfectly.

You should write the university and let them know that their use of the term in relation to a personal purchase rather than the market-wide social costs of all similar purchases shows that they are completely ignorant of what the word "externality" means.

 

I couldn't have made it clearer. The analysis is used to demonstrate a market failure. By ignoring that this is a market issue and rambling on about your guns, you've set yourself up for a fall.

Given its a supply and demand analysis and therefore based on methodological individualism, its quite pertinent to refer to individual preferences. However, that then has to be understood within the context of market equilibrium (where, as social costs are ignored, we can expect overconsumption)

I am honestly going to use the term correctly and refer to a market failure.

The example referred to pollution (or congestion) and therefore referred to the market result.

As you haven't applied it to the market (with the externality demonstrating a distinction between marginal private and marginal social costs), you're left with no means to appreciate the problem.

How long is that going to take? Read up on externalities first. You might understand it better.

One doesn't provide data. One refers to empirical study. Cook and Ludwig (2006, The social costs of gun ownership, Journal of Public Economics, Vol 90, pp 379-391) conclude that "an increase in gun prevalence causes an intensification of criminal violence—a shift toward greater lethality, and hence greater harm to the community". Duggan (2001, More Guns, More Crime, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109, pp 1086-114) is able to conclude that "guns influence crime primarily by increasing the homicide rate". The paper finds that one-third of the differential in decline between gun and non-gun homicides can be explained by reductions in the household gun prevalence. Then we have the more specific analysis. Rubin and Dezhbakhsh (2003, The effect of concealed handgun laws on crime: beyond the dummy variables, International Review of Law & Economics, Vol. 23, pp 199-217) fail to find any evidence of significant crime-reducing effects. Mocan and Tekin (2006, Guns and Juvenile Crime, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol 49, pp 507-531) conclude that after "[c]ontrolling for a very large number of personal and family characteristics and exploiting the time variation in criminal activity and gun availability,...gun availability at home is positively related to the propensity to commit crime for juveniles". Lemaire (2005, The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and Increased Insurance Costs, Journal of Risk & Insurance, Vol. 72, pp359-374) finds that "firearm violence shortens the life of an average American by 104 days (151 days for white males, 362 days for black males)" etc etc etc

Already have. See above.

It would be inappropriate to treat your purchase in isolation. It has to be understood within the framework of supply and demand. Its only then that we can appreciate the nature of the market failure.

They certainly don't seem to have taught you very well. Send me their emails and I'll tell them off for you

I'm sure that won't mean simply copying and pasting bogus complaint from low brow source.

 

The problem is that you haven't understood it. Take congestion. Does your car ownership, in isolation, create an externality? Nope. We can only appreciate it when we refer to the market and road demand

 

Then you should be prepared for people to answer for the individual externalities of their individual preferences as well. You are aware that it is possible to discuss the issue both as it pertains to the individuals here and as it pertains to the market . . . don't you?

Which is fine to bring up, but accusing someone who is examining the issue on a more individual level of not understanding the issue at all is intellectually dishonest.

So you are no longer going to falsely accuse me of not understanding the concept simply for examining it on an individual level that you brought up to begin with?

Did I deny the existence of such costs? No. Am I supposed to apologize for addressing the externalities of my individual purchase first?

As long as it takes.

I understand externalities. Your false accusations that I had misused the term, if anything, mean that perhaps you should read up on it.

Only if that was the only thing we discussed.

Yes. We have to examine it market-wide to understand market-wide effects.

Again, you have yet to point out any mistake in my use of the term.

It wasn't a complaint, it was a definition. One that you will find in Econ 101 classes all over the world.

Are you going to deny that the term applies in individual cases and can only be used in market-wide cases?

If you are going to childishly ridicule someone for "misusing" a term, the least you could do explain why the use was incorrect.

You ever going to get around to showing that the term does not apply to individual private purchase and their social costs?

 

Keep charging at windmills. I used the term, correctly, to refer to the costs/benefits of an individual purchase. Now you are trying to stretch my claim into implying that I am not aware or do not understand that there are market-wide externalities as well.

You are saying that my car ownership does not have any costs or benefits to people who were not party to its purchase? Seriously?

I'd list some, but you'd somehow extrapolate from the fact that I can identify individual externalities that I am not aware that the term also applies to market-wide externalities resulting from the whole of similar purchases.

Still not sure why identifying individual externalities means that you don't know what the word "externality" means and why it applies to a larger scale as well as the small scale that I've just mentioned.

I'm sure you'll get around to explaining that one day.

Fine. I give rides to my friends and I buy gas. My friends and the gas stations benefit from the purchase of my vehicle despite the fact that they were not party to the purchase.

I guess my ability to see that means that I suddenly don't understand that there are market-wide costs and benefits resulting from all car purchases.

And if we do happen to appreciate the effects of the individual purchase, we are magically blinded to the existence of the market.

 

No, I should be prepared to refer to the inefficiencies of the market result and consider the standard ways of demonstrating the magnitude of the market failure (such as use of elasticity measures, which again demonstrate the importance of referring to supply & demand outcome)

By referring to the individual and not the market you either do not understand externality analysis or you have deliberately misrepresented it. There's no debate in that. The only debate is over the extent that marginal private costs and marginal social costs differ. You haven't referred to anything to aid that debate.

I summed up your error neatly with the congestion example. By ignoring that this is about market failure you are certainly misrepresenting the analysis. You could attempt to restrict the analysis to individuals in isolation by referring to the Coase Theorem (given then the market doesn't need to be modelled as individual bargaining finds a solution). However, even then you'd be talking bob as the theorem cannot be applied here and its also actually about advertising the importance of transaction costs (and therefore how market failure cannot be avoided, with bargaining only available in simple relations where the market is avoided)

I won't hold me breath then

By talking about your guns you were certainly following the 'in isolation' error.

We have to refer to the market to understand externalities. We see that, for example, with the authors' reference to the secondary market.

Keep up! I'm not convinced that you will provide a critique of the paper. Time for you to prove me wrong

 

I gave an example, congestion, that can only be understood by referring to supply & demand conditions. Owning a car doesn't create congestion externalities. Its only when your behaviour is embedded within demand that the externality can be understood. Bit obvious really, so I do despair at your Econ professors!

 

Have fun with your straw man. Seriously, how many times do I have to say that the term refers to both scopes before it sinks in? Keep pretending that my acknowledgement of the individual realm entails a denial of the market as a whole, if that is what tickles your fancy.

 

I note of course that you cannot dispute the logic in my post, going for a humph instead. Of course congestion cannot be understood by looking at the individual car owner in isolation. The very idea would be ludicrous. And we have the same here with gun. The elasticity of crime with respect to gun prevalence is significant because of the secondary gun market

 

You refer to both markets and individuals, but if we spend one post focusing on the individual you accuse us of ignoring the existence of the market. Simply priceless

I seem to recall questioning the net cost of handgun ownership, which is what prompted you to (eventually) provide some evidence.

Acknowledging the existence of individual externalities does not entail an ignorance of potential market failures. Try again.

That was never my intent. I'm the one continually reminding you that discussing one scope does not require pretending that the other does not exist.

Forgive me for carefully considering data before making a decision.

By talking about my guns (an individual scope that YOU introduced in the first place) I was indeed taking time to consider my case in isolation. Considering my case in isolation is not the same as ignoring the existence of the market.

There are individual externalities and market-wide externalities. We have to refer to the market to understand the later. No one has denied that, despite all your accusations.

I'd be encouraged to focus more of my time on getting that done if I thought it would result in a rewarding conversation. If you stopped misrepresenting the things I have said, that would be a good start.

 

One has to refer to the individual in order to understand how market demand is created. Basic methodological individualism in action. However, its only through a market analysis (as described in my previous post) that we can understand externalities.

You've provided nothing. You've only promised to provide something 'eventually'. I hope this isn't a Keynes' long term.

That you don't understand how the congestion example advertises the importance of referring to market conditions is hard to believe.

Perhaps you didn't understand what you were typing?

I'm not particularly confident that you're going to provide anything pertinent. Hurry up and prove me wrong.

Individual preferences enable us to understand the market equilibrium. However, its only market conditions that will enable us to appreciate the magnitude of the costs. See, for example, the reference to the secondary gun market.

Its possible to refer to examples independent of the market. However, these are typically quite artificial (like the tired Coase Theorem example that refers to the upstream chemical firm and the downstream brewery. All irrelevant here though as clearly we are referring to an elasticity measure based on market conditions.

Sounding like a cop-out already!

 

I'm still waiting for this "evidence," and from the look of the raw data, I will be waiting a LOOOOOOOOONG time.

 

Well, that might be an interesting thread, but for the purposes of this one, would that matter to you, and do you think it would indeed matter to the gun ban crowd?

Now, I'm not sure if you've ever elaborated on your actual position on gun laws. It seems perhaps be that you're to accept broad gun rights, you just want fees at least equal to what you believe to be the additional cost to society from those rights to be imposed upon those taking advantage of them.

The outright ban set is a minority, but still in existance.

Much more significant are the folks who acknowledge the second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. They just aren't so sure people should be able to keep them, and think bearing them is crazy and should be prohibited in many if not all locations.

Um. I didn't actually have that in there. I don't think many people entirely want to ban self defense, especially without a gun. But want to make defence using firearms difficult, with things like the handgun bans, or impossible in certain contexts, such as concealed cary restrictions.

There are a lot of nuanced opinions and middle ground. I think you believe yourself to be there, but it's pretty inevitable which side of any given debate you're going to fall on.

But beyond that, there are a lot of people who are just uncomfortable about guns, think they're all around bad, and generally wish to come down about as hard on them as they can. So I'd say I'm looking for arguments for them cheifly, and then extending up to you as well.

If only it had been overwhelming. It was by one vote. The wrong justice has a heart attack, and things are up in the air.

On a practical level things are still pretty restrictive in a lot of ways in a number of places. Where I am, it's a serious crime for me to take one step off my property with a gun on my person. The only way guns can travel is in a locked case in the trunk and I'd better not thing about getting any groceries while its there, and there's a weird interplay of state and federal laws even beyond that.