Gun owners are more likely to use guns on people as non gun owners, that means gun owners pose a greater threath to our security as non gun owners.

For juvenile crime, see Mocan and Tekin (2006, Guns and Juvenile Crime, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol 49, pp 507-531) which "[c]ontrolling for a very large number of personal and family characteristics and exploiting the time variation in criminal activity and gun availability, [shows] that gun availability at home is positively related to the propensity to commit crime for juveniles"

For family violence, see Azrael and Hemenway (2000, In the safety of your own home: results from a national survey on gun use at home, Social Science & Medicine, Vol 50, pp 285-291) conclude: "Our results suggest that, in the home, hostile gun displays against family members may be more common than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic violence directed against women"

Guns aren't found to have perfect substitutes.

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Thanks for sending the references...I can't find anything in the study you reference that suggests that they screened for the legal ownership of the weapons. Do this study in Salt Lake City, UT or Brandon, FL and then compare that data to Atlanta, GA or Detroit MI...this will give you the real picture. Then cross that against the legal registered weapons and you find the real problem. Lack of education which drives poverty, which drives hopelessness, which drives illegal activity in juveniles.

As for the violence against women...I'll argue that more woman are beaten then shot and if the women were armed and had the courage to put two center mass, then many of these lowlife husbands and boyfriends might treat them better...of course the judicial system would need to stop being lazy and stupid and back up the women , instead of just keeping them in harm's way...IMO

__________________
The Franklin Party
Political Common Sense for America
"We believe in Common Sense Leadership!"

The first study focuses on the ease of access to guns at home. Of the 15,000+ juveniles studied, 23% report such easy access. This is in line with the other studies of the period. The regression method adopted also controls for other illegal activity within the family. The longitudinal data is also able to isolate the effect of changes in gun availability, whilst controlling for a large number of personal and famoily characteristics

Already considered in the empirical methodology!

I'm not particularly interested in what you'd argue. I'm interested in quantifying the overall effect on the family. Given spousal abuse typically out-weighs self-defence, there's no unambiguous positive effect from gun ownership

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

The polling simply shows a trend. I'm sorry if you find this somehow threatening, but that's simply the facts. If you're trying to make a case for more guns equals less crime, then you'll fall far short on numerous levels. First and foremost you would have to address the fact that while there might be more guns bought over the past couple of decades, there are fewer gun owners.

So, do your homework and prove that more guns causes lower crime rates, keeping in mind that correlation does not show causation. Good luck.

Well, that's precisely the point, no? The current lax gun laws we have in this country don't allow us to separate the two. You cannot talk about legal gun ownership without taking into account illegal gun ownership.

By the way, .......Reiver was not making a "presupposition". He has dutifully supported all of his claims here with peer reviewed studies.

Peer reviewed??? Does that mean that the NRA, ATF, DEA, Gang Control in the major cities, and battered women groups have all agreed with this conclusion? You guys want to call these surveys facts, but the conclusions driven by smoothing data is seldom fact.

What are you talking about when you say lax gun laws. In order to own a hand gun in most states, you need to be vetted as not having a criminal record including domestic abuse. Has this failed because of incompetent workers...yes, but that is a statement of the shoddy work that comes from gov't bureaucracy and not the system.

What's your solution? Take all guns away from law abiding citizens? How is that working for Australia? How do you intend on stopping the bad guys from having them?

__________________
The Franklin Party
Political Common Sense for America
"We believe in Common Sense Leadership!"

I'm not interested in playing the chase me game with you. I could say the same thing of every one of these super smoothed and statistically altered survey results. Correlation does not show causation. Just because the majority of male teens in Montana owns a gun doesn't mean that you are more apt to be shot by a juvenile there. Just because most under aged gang members carry an unregistered hand gun doesn't increase their odds of killing someone or being killed...or does it?

You're right...it's not the gun , but the intention of the user.

__________________
The Franklin Party
Political Common Sense for America
"We believe in Common Sense Leadership!"

You reference the idea of regression analysis which just tells me that overall interpretation can only be done by understanding the specifics of the blending of the data parts. Did they give a higher coefficient to inner city families versus rural? Did they take into account only hand gun availability or did they also take into account families that own hunting rifles? How much influence did single family homes have on the correlation between access and action? Were any of these kids on prescription drugs for ADD, ADHD, or depression?

You make these studies sound so definitive, but once again this issue can only be looked at with statistical analysis. I agree that many conclusions can be drawn from a study like this and many of those conclusions can be very valuable. What I keep seeing though is a clinical yes or no answer to a problem that has many more variables then can be smoothed into a regression and have it spit out a single conclusion.

I know you don't like to discuss real life examples, but that's the world I live in. I love data analysis, but I temper it with experience. I spent 5 years of my life working with women who were threatened at home and work. You should go out and talk with some of these ladies before you just quote a survey on how their world would be better or worse off.

__________________
The Franklin Party
Political Common Sense for America
"We believe in Common Sense Leadership!"

The desirability of the regression methodology is obvious, given the multiple factors that impact on the probability of criminal activity

Higher coefficient? Your vocab is incompatible with the empirical methodology adopted. However, location dummies are included.

It focuses on gun access in general. However, it does look at gun ownership in detail. This becomes a check of robustness (i.e. the extent that guns are available to a child because of poor home environment, with the latter really determining the risk of criminal activity for the juvenile). However, the paper is able to reject the importance of omitted variable bias.

The reference to drugs is more encompassing, controlling for drug and alcohol consumption.

This comment makes zero sense. This is a statistical study of over 15,000 juveniles. The regression approach is the correct methodology given the numerous factors considered in criminology.

This doesn’t make sense either, given we’re talking about the “real life” of over 15,000 juveniles. The riches of the data also enable us to avoid making ad hoc conclusions based on our own lack of objectivity.. The data is rich given information is derived from numerous “real life” individuals, from the adolescents themselves to school administrators.

You could say that quantitative analysis should be complemented with qualitative analysis. However, you haven’t. Instead we have a sad reality. Those surveyed have simply disagreed with your view of the world. I know, I know, how naughty of them!

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.