The validity of the theory of deterrence is not being discussed. Rather it is the matter of the inability of yourself to accept the fact that human behavior is something that simply cannot be accurately predicted in a scientific manner. Predictions rely on certain behaviors being carried out in specific, pre-set patterns that relate directly to logic, such as the concept of water flowing downhill following the path of least resistance, rather than fighting against gravity to travel uphill in a manner that makes no sense whatsoever.
Don't backtrack now! And you're back to attacking deterrence theory. What do you think Lott and Kleck are doing? They're ultimately adapting empirical approaches by Ehrlich and co.
Pray tell. If the theory of deterrence is devoid of credibility, then what is the purpose of attempting to implement legal restrictions that are so easy to violate when someone simply has no desire to play by the rules of society? If a law does not deter someone from committing a particular crime, what is the point of implementing the law to begin with? To define some specific behavior as a new crime, so that it may be punished where previously defined criminal actions would be inadequate, even if they apply at the time of the incident?
You don't seem to understand your own side's argument. Deterrence is used to try and support the 'more guns=less crime hypothesis. The models used are straight from Becker and Ehrlich. You whinging about their approach only informs me how you aren't able to suitably direct your post truthing.
What is not understood on the part of yourself, is that there is no affiliation on the part of myself with either side of the discussion. There is no "side" in this matter that applies to myself. The purpose of the presence of myself in this discussion, and numerous other discussions, is to cut through the nonsensical rhetoric being lobbed about by those who could care less, and bring the discussion to matters of fact. Pure, unadulterated, basic facts, regardless of who or what they may support overall.
I know that isn't true. I saw you, for example, accept a Cook paper because it was posted by an pro gunner. Any Cook paper posted by those wanting to strengthen gun control is, however, rejected as biased. You have bias. That you've spent so much time attacking the theory used by pro gunners merely shows how that bias restricts logical argument.
Pray tell where precisely did such occur? Cite it. The theory being relied on to support the notion that more privately owned firearms somehow leads to more crimes being committed as a direct result is wrong. It is as simple as that. No matter how many times the theory is relied on, it is still wrong. Nothing is going to change that simple fact. Just as nothing is going to change the fact that basic human nature cannot be typified, codified, and accurately predicted on the basis of economics, or any other presented science that tires desperately to make sense of what is ultimately devoid of sense. the theory is wrong. It was wrong from the moment of inception when it was first presented. It remained wrong despite the number of individuals who support it. It remains wrong to this very day, because there is no evidence to show that it is those who legally own and use firearms, who are going out and committing the majority of these resultant crimes. There is no evidence that the criminal element is illegally procuring firearms in direct response to the undetermined number of legal firearm owners who they may encounter in their efforts to victimize random members of the public. There is no evidence to support the theory, only politically-motivated supposition and guesswork to try and avoid blaming people for their own bad behavior.
If you've forgotten already, no skin off my nose. A lot of words to post truth foot stamp. Given you've attacked the theory used by pro-gunners (without appreciating it of course), your justification to ignore the evidence simply leads to illogical argument.
If accusations are going to be lodged against a member of the forum, it would do well to be able to present evidence to back them up. Unfounded accusations are not conductive of proper discussion. None of which changes the fact that there is no evidence, none whatsoever, to prove that those who legally own and use firearms, are in any way responsible for the majority of firearm-related criminal incidents in the united states. No matter how many times the nonsense keeps being repeated, there is no evidence to support it. It is a claim with all the integrity of claims of catching sight of the sasquatch.
For which side of the equation, however? Those that use them legally and abide by the rules of society? Or those that cannot legally possess them, and yet do so regardless for the express purpose of victimizing others for their own benefit?
Amazing how quickly you forget! It was in May after all. We have paper after paper showing the more guns = more crime hypothesis cannot be rejected. Despite not reading most of them, you make ridiculous claims about bias. There's no 'philosophy of firearms in your approach. It makes Trump's tweets like well thought out.
More bad guys halted in their tracks by honest citizens defending themselves. If those inflated numbers of serious injuries, suffering, and deaths are bad guys, I'm delighted. Seeing as how firearms ownership has increased dramatically in the US, concurrent to a dramatic decline in violent crime and homicide rates, I think you wouldn't know "reality" if it backhanded you across the face.
Interesting read: "The Philosophy of the Technology of the Gun ................................................French philosopher Bruno Latour goes far as to depict the experience of possessing a gun as one that produces a different subject: "You are different with a gun in your hand; the gun is different with you holding it. You are another subject because you hold the gun; the gun is another object because it has entered into a relationship with you." While the idea that a gun-human combination can produce a new subject may seem extreme, it is actually an experience that people (with appropriate background assumptions) typically attest to, when responding to strong architectural configurations. When walking around such prestigious colleges as Harvard and the University of Chicago, it is easy to feel that one has suddenly become smarter. Likewise, museums and sites of religious worship can induce more than a momentary inclination towards reflection; they can allow one to view artistic and spiritual matters as a contemplative being. ........................................." https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...ilosophy-of-the-technology-of-the-gun/260220/
Well sure. When not caring a gun, I feel relatively vulnerable to larger, stronger, younger people up to no good. While carrying, not so much.
This is also discussed in a section of the book "SAS and Elite Forces Guide -- Armed Combat," by Martin J. Dougherty. https://www.amazon.com/Elite-Forces-Guide-Armed-Combat/dp/0762787848
For me, having one of my guns with me is a feeling of euphoria. I know that although I am too old to win a bar fight against one of those young bucks who is streaming with testosterone and looking for a fist fight, I am still not too old to win a gun fight. I then know there is nothing on this Earth that I cannot kill.
When bad guys see you with a gun they always run away. I have never had anyone stand up to my 45ACP. They can tell by my/your body language that you are about to kill them. You brow tilts forward towards them. You square your shoulders in their direction. Your upper body slightly leans towards them. This is predator behavior that all animals instinctively understand. It means they are about to be killed and eaten. It originated with a spear. Now it is exemplified by a firearm.
And yet it apparently cannot actually be cited by yourself. It can be rejected, and it has been rejected. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, to show that the hypothesis has any basis in reality. If it were indeed the case, there would not be an increase in the number of knife, acid, and motor vehicle-related attacks being carried out in the united kingdom right now. They have indeed been read. That is why they are rejected, as their lack of substance was recognized. None of the papers present anything relating to evidence that would prove conclusively, that those who legally own and use firearms are responsible for the majority of firearm-related incidents being committed in the united states. It is nothing more than blind speculation, based exclusively on politically-motivated bias in a desperate attempt to try and ignore that the problem is the human element of the equation. It is people who are the problem, not the implement, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
I haven't cited it deliberately. You continue to show yourself up! Anyone who is objective and reads the research would tut! We're back to your ideological contempt for anything that is inconsistent with your bogus righteousness. Why can't you refer to one empirical paper and attack it with credible empirical bias? Why are you reliant on blanket "I don't like evidence that doesn't agree with me I don't"?
Meaning that no actual citation can be presented to back up the claim. It is not research. Factually incorrect. It is a matter of having no use for politically-motivated, ideologically-driven beliefs that do not correspond with basic reality. There is simply no evidence to support the false notion that more firearms directly correlate to more crimes being committed as a result. Pray tell, how exactly does one go about empirically attacking, discrediting, and tearing down what is ultimately nothing more than a myth with no basis in reality? Explain such. What is the methodology that is appropriate to utilize when the argument being addressed is so fundamentally devoid of credibility, that it has no more legitimacy than the delusional ramblings of a homeless individual suffering from schizophrenia? That is where the hypothesis of "more firearms equals more crime" stands in terms of credibility.
That you deny your May existence is as pathetic as the hypocrisy that you snide. And we can stop here. Anything that disagrees with your ideology isn't research. You have no understanding of what research means of course. Post truth toss!
