YOUNG, DUMB AND ARMED How Melbourne became a gun city

Perfectly reasonable to attack specific paper; e.g. "Lott's use of the dummy variable approach guaranteed irrelevant empirical results". However, you go for blanket attacks as you find evidence inconvenient. That isn't good form!

See above! Its not difficult to make reasoned critique of paper. Empirical bias is Stats 101 after all. Why don't you?

 

Haven't you lot ever heard of fines?

They can be amazingly effective and a real money saver

 

The united states fines a great many things, such as traffic violations, but it does not take such an approach with illicit narcotic substances, because such substances are prohibited under all circumstances. Fines only apply to improper applications of otherwise legal goods. Fines cannot be applied to illicit goods being used exactly as they are intended, because such goods cannot be owned and used to begin with.

 

And herein lies the misunderstanding around science and peer review. May I suggest a little self education on the subject?

Scholarly research is the foundation of tertiary education in science. It has methodology and rigor. Learn what they mean and you will never again look foolish when discussing this. Learning the basis of research will gift you with one of the greatest prizes of your life. The ability to sift fact from fiction

Like most who do not understand and who struggle with research there is a large degree of world view bias. That is why blogs saying things like " duh Kellerman sux" are given equal weight to a critique (and yes there is a difference between a criticism and a critique) on Lotts work

For many many years there simply was not the research on guns but now there will be an increasing number of papers published so hold onto your hats and start to learn how to critique research

 

Why not honestly answer a direct question in your own words and for a moment put aside all bias.

What is wrong with resisting violent attack with a small revolver ?

 

Hmmmmmmm I doubt your reasoning but will allow it for now

You can though place fines on firearms

 

Please actually refer to the quote and not give random questions. Thanks!

 

Because research shows that having a firearm in the house puts you at greater risk

 

Why not explain how ?

How have I never been at greater risk ?
I have had firearms for as soon as I was of age.

 

I h

ave already supplied the link once in this thread but try this
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

Most times fines are ignored and unpaid, and a State fund ends up in deficit.

 

Can't you explain ????
I have never been in danger for having guns in my holster, in my Police Vehicle and in My Official duties...... Or Retired now....

 

What part of that research is hard to understand?

 

Then you back it with something with teeth like a prison term or simply hand it over to a private collection company

 

It is not research, it is a ridiculous blanket statement that makes no sense and conflates various situations.

Irresponsible people like illegal drug dealers and other criminals obviously have problems with every aspect of their lives and already prohibited from owning firearms as opposed to law abiding citizens that have concealed carry licenses.

The researchers you quote are biased and have a preset agenda to ban and further restrict firearms.

 

Pray tell exactly how can fines be applied to firearms? Exactly what would be fined in this particular matter? Would it apply to their use or to their mere ownership?

 

The matter is understood sufficiently well. The problem stems from researchers who present findings based on junk sciences, bought and paid for to sell a specific political narrative, who take extraordinary steps to twist the data to support the preconceived outcome even when it otherwise does not. The matter is further compounded when they refuse to present the methodology utilized in their research, or the data that was used in compiling their findings. Often this is done in a deliberate manner to conceal their falsehoods from the public, as it would jeopardize their funding if the truth was known.

 

The fact that it is not only not research, but the article also refers heavily to the work of Arthur Kellerman as if it was still credible and respectable, when it is not. The methodology utilized by himself was wrong from the beginning, and continues to be wrong today. Anything that cites him and his work as if it held credibility, is devoid of credibility itself. His own findings admit that living alone, renting an apartment, and engaging in illegal activities, are fare more likely to result in someone being shot than mere firearms ownership.

 

Sounds like we need a border wall or something.

 

Your "study" doesn't even get basic facts right, like this one:

This period also saw the dramatic decline in FFLs, though FFL numbers did not experience a rebound in subsequent years, implying that since 2004, a growing number of firearms are in the US market, sold by a dwindling number of retailers.

The decline in FFL's had nothing to do with a "dwindling number of retailers", and everything to do with Clinton having the ATF revoke FFL's from non-retailers.

In August 1993 Clinton directed the ATF to conduct a review of the FFL system. According to the review over 40% of FFLs were not engaged in the business of selling or transferring firearms, but rather were using
the licenses to enhance their personal collections or in some cases to simply make it easier to receive a firearm directly.

That's why the number of FFL's dropped. Not the AWB or a decline in retail sales.

A "study" that can't get basic information correct isn't even worth the digital paper it's printed on.

I won't even go into the ridiculous methodology it uses like "distance to an FFL" from Mexico.

 

You are aware that Mexicans on the U.S.A. side of the border and are engaged in illegally obtaining and stealing firearms to send to Mexico ?

And for sure a Bird will not like this comment.

 

Another paper for to read...

https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/17/4/825/2639941

 

Yet again another article hidden behind a pay wall, meaning that those who disagree with the premise are forced to pay before they can actually analyze whatever is found within it.

 

Happy to tell you it's methodology and results (although if you struggle with the abstract we probably have an appreciation why you're so poorly read on this subject)

 

You only care about methodology and studies that support your false Agenda.

I have investigated the situation, and spoken to countless Mexicans on the U.S. side, and found evidence of exactly what is transpiring between both Countries.