Anti-intellectualism. Rant and nothing more. I apprecoiate the pro-gunning herd think that's enough, but it only describes the weakness of their argument.
There is nothing intellectual about the data being presented by yourself, other than the fact that it qualifies as being intellectual dishonesty. Economists have no training in matters pertaining to crime, and are rightfully dismissed when they stray even a little from the very limited area in which they received training and education.
You show your utter ignorance with this sentence. I don't present the data. Raw data can tell us very little. I refer to empirical evidence which, adopting an empirical specification to enable statistical testing of hypothesis, isolates gun effects. You've been informed of this, so stop with the tosspot routine!
What is referred to yourself is false, intentionally manufactured data designed to trick the public into thinking that firearms are a larger problem than the individuals that use them in an illegal manner. Economists do not possess the training necessary to say with any measure of certainty, that the defining factor in the commission of a crime is the availability of a firearm. They are not criminologists, and should mind their own business.
Refer me to one credible source that rejects the use of empirical analysis that isolates gun effects. I look forward to your choice!
First it is being asserted by yourself, as being nothing less than an absolute fact, that the use of raw data is misleading and does nothing to tell the full story. Then at the same time it is asserted by yourself that economists, whose career training and education is focused exclusively on the topic of economics -the science of production and distribution of goods and services- are somehow qualifies to take this misleading raw data, and use it to determine conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt, exactly what factors do and do not motivate the commission of crimes, and conclude that it is the accessibility of firearms that does such. There is no rational or logical basis, none whatsoever, for what is being presented by yourself. The raw data cannot be misleading, and yet clear enough to allow unqualified economist to look at it and conclude that firearms do anything to motivate, inspire, or even aid the commission of criminal acts.
Nope. I asked you fellows to "refer me to one credible source that rejects the use of empirical analysis that isolates gun effects". This is just methodology comment. Are you that ignorant of the basics?
Fact: violent crime and property crime has significantly decreased in the last decade. Fact: number of guns in private Hans has significantly increased Those state can be obtained via FBI by anyone After years of hearing more gun = more violent crime, many view those facts as the antithesis of that narrative So, rather than jump to a causal conclusion, at the very least those two facts should elicit a huge question; WHY? Care to suggest a credible hypothesis?
No study on either side the the issue has ever isolated gun effects from other potential related variables variables How about a thought experiment? Most accept tobacco smoking has detrimental effects on health and mortality but contest the more guns = more crime analogy; Why? There is a good reason. Do you suppose it was empirical analysis that revealed a causality in regard to the effects of tobacco?
False of course. Kleck shows otherwise. You'll find the medical profession are consistent on both issues! The difference of course is that the tobacco lobby has largely been defeated.
No, not Anti-intellectualism at all, I grew up in so call Intellectualism and upper strata of Education, supper with Philosophers and Professors and others from a very early age, Opera at the Met, classic Symphony and Ballet etc... Gun Control often was a topic, same reasoning, except the odd one that wondered if an Armed response to a Mugger might be appropriate. This being promptly scolded. No, your vaunted studies only conclude such after considering only crime statistics, and not the total picture, something you completely refuse to see.
That is a Lie, Tobacco sales and Tax revenues are higher than ever. Chewing Tobacco is a well known carcinogen and responsible for more deaths related to cancer of the E.N.T. , gastro intestinal. Yet these products are still sold...
Even though it could be proven, through actual science, that their product causes cancer, even in those that do not utilize them, the tobacco lobby has not been defeated. They continue to remain in business, and their various products are still widely sold, and regularly purchased and used by those who have concluded that the risk is worth the benefit they get from it. Comparatively, science cannot prove any matter relating to firearms posing a health hazard when they are used properly and legally. Even if it could be done, the public would still engage in their purchase and use, because they have concluded that the risk is worth the benefit.
However, autopsies and post mortems of heavy smokers show extensive lung tissue damage as well as cardiovascular damages, abnormal heart rhythm, and damage to all internal organs as well as cancers of various types, it is no longer smoking might cause sickness and death it simply does. Smoking has no benefits. Aside from an occasional accident or negligence, and excluding criminal misuses of guns and cars and computers etc..., Guns are beneficial and have many appropriate uses.
You will find that the efforts to maintain inefficient practices, which ignore the externalities generated by addiction, have indeed been defeated. Optimal policy, and ratcheting up of policies demanded by the medical profession, is being adopted. Tobacco companies are sensibly diversifying. Wonder what would happen to gun control if the medical profession also dictated policy there?
Kellermann controlled for 31 different variables and still found an independent link between gun ownership and an increased risk of being murdered. What variables did he miss?
Kellermann cooked his numbers and focused his research on a high-crime environment because that enabled him to skew the results. He rejected self-defense situations where the home defender failed to kill his attacker, but included every accident and suicide he could find, and claimed rival gang members killing each other was a situation of one "acquaintance" killing someone else. Long story short: Kellermann lied, and whatever credibility he had as a researcher evaporated instantly.
He found a higher risk for renting and living alone; why weren't either of those the title of the study. He found that long guns were less of a risk than no guns, said claimed "guns" were the risk, not handguns, and he never claimed that gun ownership was the risk - the study said "guns in the home", which includes guns brought in by attackers. I'd like to see a study that didn't include criminals possessing guns, and didn't allow the inclusion of guns brought in by criminals attacking the residents.
Then post the critique proving that Just saying that " I fink it's not rite" is hardly academic rebuttal
Because they were not the point of the study........ And how do you know he found that data? Do you have a special insight into the date he used?
