Arming public reduces crime

No need for tantrum responses dear chap. Peruse the evidence and you'll realise the strength of my position

 

Danct,

Thank you for submiting a well thought out and very civilized comment. It has been my sad experience that many choose insult and pointless and meaningless rhetoric in place of cool logic.

I do wish to clarify my position somewhat, as it appears you may have misinterpreted my comments. I do not believe in mandatory armament. It would be just as large a violation of a person's right to choose as denying them one. I soley believe that the people have the right to own firearms. As a child my father inherited several rifles and two hand guns from my grandfather. Having a large family, my father decided that keeping guns in the house would be a risk for his children. He then gave them to my uncle to keep at his ranch. It was his choice and right to do so. I believe that each individual has the right to evaluate their lives and make a decision on whether owning a firearm or not.

My only worry is that of over strict regulations on ownership. I believe that gun ownership should be an option for all but those that have proven irresponsible with them. Only convicted criminals should in my opinion be denied access seeing as they have forfeited their rights by impedeing on the rights of others.

 

Onalandline,

I would warn you from making comments as to the intelligence and habits of others. I do not agree with Reiver and his logic. I believe that some of his statements are also baseless and incorrect. I would suggest that instead of insulting the man, use logic to disprove his innaccuracies. Then let others draw their own opinions of him based on intelligence of his comments rather than hateful insults.

On the subject that deterence is a very real and proven method, we must only look at history for support. When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

It is interesting how police, those charged with the public's safety, are for private ownership on guns. They even went as far as to teach coarses for others to know how to properly operate a weapon.

 

Which statements are they then? I hope you're not going to be rude and make baseless accusations

 

They have been debunked throughout the forum, requiring us to list them is an unreasinable request and would eat up a lot of forum space.

 

Baseless accusations is your thing. I'm hoping for better do shush for a second

 

You get what you give Reiver!

 

Reiver.....Were you bullied as a teen.?....And as an adult you got you butt kicked on a regular basis.

Reiver.....Thus the reason you are affraid to venture outside your home. And stay inside your room on our computer, going after gun owners, because it makes you feel big.?

 

He saw a picture of a gun in a book once and it was SCAAAWY.

 

You continue to give juvenile remarks. This topic deserves better. Why do you think the evidence supports the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis?

 

I don't beleive you have proven that it does. More guns equals more gun crime? Or more guns equals more crime in general? Either way you have failed.

 

I've merely referred to the evidence. I know you find that worrying, but keep with it!

 

I do wish you would stop lying so profusely here. You DO NOT refer to evidence. You spew bigoted stereotypical slander, and you draw causal relationships where THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that they exist!

 

Stop pretending you don't understand what evidence entails. You've already been shown to know otherwise!

I refer to the evidence and acknowledge the objective conclusions. It isn't a difficult task as I'm not authoritarian submissive

 

More smoke blowing, Just because you say it proves a causal link doesn't mean it does.

No you don't. You routinely claim causal relationships where they don't exist. You have been exposed.

 

Do you mean, two cherry-picked nations, with cherry-picked offenses? Or, I suppose your "statistics" (wherever they are) might show otherwise.

 

Thank you. I also appreciate your logic and good manners.

But, you are arguing for something that already exists. This is why I previously highlighted your false dichotomy.

This is a valid stance, but there is much more to gun control than regulating ownership. There are laws intended to address illegal trafficking, sales, uses and safe storage, amongst others. These are all viewed to be constitutional limitations.

 

Great to see you reduced to these schoolyard tactics. Knowing that the evidence doesn't support your position, you haven't got any well-meaning (but ultimately invalid) arguments to give. You're like am empty vessel waiting to be piloted to shore. The eureka moment must be just around the corner!

 

We've been through this before No need to rehash. The statistics tell all.

 

I just made that comment because Reiver ignores all the statistics, has his nose stuffed in some journal he/she worships, and ignores logic and common sense.

Thanks for the post.

 

Statistics? One knows how to use them. One knows the multiple variables impacting on crime rates and how to avoid making spurious conclusion. One doesn't know, however, why gun fanatics aren't capable of adopting such sense. One can assume but one cannot know

 

Yes, Reiver, the statistics.

 

I can't think of one occasion where you haven't fallen foul of making spurious conclusion. Keep going though, you'll avoid the problem eventually!

 

Actually, thinking back on it, you've posted a lot of studies here, but I don't believe you've ever cited one with a hypothesis related to any specific piece of legislation.

Rather the anti gun studies avoid those and examine things like ownership rates and the "consequences" of that, and leave the reader to infir that gun control laws should help.


Also you sidestepped a question I asked earlier regarding publishability. To paraphrase, lets say that there was, say, something like the "Gun Town USA" bit where there was a sudden and publicised spike in legal gun ownership, and police records indicated a drop in crime.

Would that event even be publishable as:

-the writer wouldn't have performed any origional data collection if they just use the police statistics
-the numerical analysis would be trivial.

This isn't some "conspiracy" thing. It's that the purpose of journals is the dissemination of origional and significant research. They were not intended to be a forum of political views nor repositories of data and events.

 

And you'd be wrong about that too. See, for example, the Kwon and Baack article. So far all I've seen from you is misrepresentation of the empirical process.

Its possible to undertake a natural experiment approach. However, it very difficult to do and prone to all sorts of potential bias: e.g. the statistical analysis suggests crime convergence effects exist. That the use of raw data is almost certainly an exercise into spurious grunt is clear-cut