Thread: States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

We're very concerned with copyright laws as Political Forum could be held liable which is why we require links to articles and generally prohibit complete copy and pasting of articles. For sources where an internet link cannot be found short quotations from a document can be used so long as appropriate credit is given to the author and source without breaking the copyright laws.

I felt that required clarification.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

No clarification required. I copy and paste short quotations where appropriate (as someone would when reviewing evidence),

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Does coercion originate with the individual or does it orginate with an object?

That is a simple question.

Behaviour changes with the object. You can't divorce the two as there aren't perfect substitutes

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Yet you use sources that no one else has access to.

Very interesting.

No, I use peer reviewed research. Best practice, as anyone with but a snip of literature review sense will confirm! Unlike others I am not restricted to secondary sources of dubious value. I can trace all aspects of my argument to the best scholarly sources

Originally Posted by Reiver

Behaviour changes with the object. You can't divorce the two as there aren't perfect substitutes

I don't believe this would be supported by psychological analysis but would admit that the object can make a difference upon whether a person would act based upon their desire to impose coercion upon others. The desire itself originates with the individual whether they act upon it or not.

Law abiding citizens that have no intent of forcing others to do something (i.e. using coercive force) are not going to be influenced by whether they have a firearm or not.

It was funny to watch the squirming when the fact was presented that we have more firearms in the US today than ten years ago while violent crime has gone down. The "logic" given what that a many factors contribute to violent crime (coercion) and, of course, primary amoung those factors is the intent of the individual. The object (firearms) has little to do with whether a person is going to exert coercion on another person (commit a violent crime against them) or not and this is reflected by the fact that while firearm ownership has increased violent crimes have gone down. Obviously the "intent of the individual" outweighs the possession of firearms when it comes to violent crimes.

If that were not the case then the arguments that "firearms increase crime" would have prevailed and we'd have more violent crime today than in the past when there were far fewer guns. It's the individual that commits the crime and not the firearm.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

I don't believe this would be supported by psychological analysis

Why haven't you presented some evidence to support that opinion? The evidence showing that, ceteris paribus, gun possessors are more likely to die suggests that behaviour does change

Law abiding citizens that have no intent of forcing others to do something (i.e. using coercive force) are not going to be influenced by whether they have a firearm or not.

There's no binary here. No white hats versus black hats. We see, for example, higher chances of juvenile crime amongst gun owning households.

It was funny to watch the squirming when the fact was presented that we have more firearms in the US today than ten years ago while violent crime has gone down.

Spurious conclusion isn't entertaining. That there are multiple factors impacting on crime is darn obvious. You'd have to assume all of those factors are constant. That would be strikingly silly. Fortunately empirical analysis is able to control for these factors and isolate gun effects. That evidence doesn't agree with your 'opinion'

The object (firearms) has little to do with whether a person is going to exert coercion on another person (commit a violent crime against them) or not and this is reflected by the fact that while firearm ownership has increased violent crimes have gone down.

The evidence says you are wrong, indicating behavioural changes that increase crime rates. You're simply ignoring the evidence because it doesn't agree with your opinion. That won't be an effective strategy

It's the individual that commits the crime and not the firearm.

More individuals with guns=more crime. The multiple studies that I have referenced have one common ingredient: they show that you are ignoring coercion created through gun preferences and gun possession

Originally Posted by Reiver

No, I use peer reviewed research. Best practice, as anyone with but a snip of literature review sense will confirm! Unlike others I am not restricted to secondary sources of dubious value. I can trace all aspects of my argument to the best scholarly sources

Of course. But you can't share it.

Suspicious.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Of course. But you can't share it.

Suspicious.

Perhaps its a conspiracy? Perhaps I actually own all of the academic journals and I write the articles myself?

Nope! The reality is mundane: I'm trained in literature review methods and I know how to both defend or attack an argument. You fellows can do the same you know? One doesn't have to be told what to think. One doesn't have to be reliant on secondary sources providing skewed 'analysis'

You are a secondary source.

Perhaps you do not see the irony.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

You are a secondary source.

I don't want to manipulate you or change your opinion (I only get involved in very selective direct action). I just find using the truth entertaining (as I've already remarked by noting the anti-intellectualism adverts)

Originally Posted by Wolverine

You are a secondary source.

Perhaps you do not see the irony.

Ayuh,... I do,... Doubly so...




I think I'm about to give a rep point to a Liberal,....

That is a Miracle....