OK then, let's try this....In America, socialists call themselves 'liberal' and socialism is a mental disorder.
You'd be twinning fib with erroneousness. Why do you think such inanity will make your arguments look competent?
No that is the truth. It is you who are prevaricating using fake and pedant reasoning. Besides the thread is about guns....remember?
I merely demand validity. By utilising clear nonsense, as shown by your abuse of basic political economy, you ensured that your argument cannot be taken seriously. In terms of the gun lobby, this is an unfortunately common result. This may reflect the authoritarian personality involved and the subsequent tendency to rely on pro-gun groups to complete their reasoning for them. These groups of course encourage it as avoiding rational debate can only be in their favour.
No you are trolling. Let's just cut the psychobabble...I will always have the authority if I have a gun and you don't.
A silly claim. You should actually thank me for putting you right. By making fewer basic errors your argument could be treated with more respect. Sounds like you think guns are there to threaten folk. That's a shame, but perhaps does describe some unfortunate elements of demand preferences
You ignore the point I've raised as you cannot respond with anything of value. Never concerned about that. I will not ignore rational debate to make it easier for the herd
If we ban guns in the states just like how alcohol was banned in the early 20th century, would that not stimulate more interest for guns in the black market and generate more profit for illegal gun trafficking? Due to the unrest created by the 18th Amendment, which was repealed by the 21st Amendment, would that not have similar repercussions if we banned guns and later have another amendment repeal a banning of guns amendment?
Making guns illegal won't make the streets safer, it'll just make law abiding citizens helpless. Criminals don't care if guns are illegal, they'll buy/sell/use them anyway. If every citizen had a gun and were educated on how to use them, it'd be a lot safer and things like the V-Tech Massacre wouldn't happen. You wouldn't try to shoot up a gun show, would you?
That's what happens when you post one day, and don't reply at all or not for several days, especially if your initial argument is specious and vague. Why not engage in reasoning rather than something like the following (i.e. your usual posts). "Guns are bad. I don't like guns. Guns are dangerous. All guns should be banned"
Whilst I don't support making guns illegal, you're misrepresenting the evidence. The hypothesis 'more guns=more crime' cannot be rejected, with the legal market providing weapons for the illegal market
You must be given some credit for being in this forum with your psuedo-scientific data on gun control. I believe you mean well, yet cannot "see the trees because of the forest" when it comes to understanding guns as they relate to crime. Your idea that the presence of guns (X) will cause crime (Y) to increase will not work. It will also not explain why crime is low in areas with high gun ownership like Wyoming and Lichtenstein and is so high in places with restrictive gun laws where there is SUPPOSED to be low gun ownership like Washington DC and South Africa. You say you don't want to ban guns but you have yet to come up with a comprehensive set of gun laws, or other laws, that will reduce crime in dangerous areas both here in the US and abroad. Original thinking would really impress.
You do your side a disservice if you believe that threatening and bullying behavior make any sort of positive argument for gun ownership.
You want him to make something up rather than referring to published literature? Kinda turns rational debate on its ear, no?
When one tests hypothesis one will control for other crime impacting variables. When one wants to make spurious conclusion one will ignore those controls. You're deliberately using spurious link in order to hide from properly conducted hypothesis testing. Its annoyingly common though, so I'm not having a pop at you. You want to ignore optimal gun control because crime will always exist? Gun control has been found to significantly reduce homicide rates. You might not enjoy that finding but that's a 'tough' moment!
Yes, I would much rather see new ideas based on reasoning, than a stack of data by politicians and social scientists. There is only one right answer in math and physics (at least most areas of physics). Gun control studies are very corruptable, I would almost call them "junk science." You may as well hypothesise increased ice cream consumption causes crime to go up when you consider guns causing the same thing. I remember something called "spurious data."
This. the fact of the matter is no matter what yopu ban the BAD PEOPLe who use them for CRIMEs will get ahold of them! There are plenty of illegal drugs here in america and yet people get ahold of them like crazy. The people who would use them regardless. Now when it comes to guns the matter of having this freedom is important because of this logic. Banned guns: Bad people: Still have them Good people: do not have them unable to defend themselves Legal Guns: Bad people: Have them Good people: Able to bust a cap in the bad guys ass if need be. The fact is here in america we do not have a strong enough federal government to enforce the banning of guns. Just like we could not enforce the banning of alcohol and we cannot enforce the banning of illegal drugs to the extent that would be needed to decrease the rates. Also OP take your number of gun related crimes and translate that into population percentage, dont be biased.
This is merely a poison the well fallacy, dismissing verifiable science because it doesn't agree with your particular ideology. Weak, really. If you have something relevant to a particular study, then raise it logically, but don't play with fallacies as if they might replace logical and critical thinking.
Yet again, you dodge the question. If there is some sound theory that gun control (ie. the typical ideas of banning certain types of weapons, registration, extensive background checks, waiting periods, etc.) works, it must work in all areas of the world, all the time. If this was real science, which your theories are most likely not, you would treat your "gun control" law like a drug study. The drug must have a positive effect in every group it is used in. Do any of your pompus gun control studies involve worldwide effects of gun registration? To say, "well crime rates are low in Denmark, Australia,Japan and certain cities and states in the US because of these gun laws," is not fair if similar laws do not do the same thing in other areas and coutries like Mexico, Brazil, South Africa. You say we must control for "other crime impacting variables." So what ARE they? My point is that crime is a function of a group's people, culture, and moral values. It is also controlled by the amount of punishment inflicted on persons who commit the crimes. These are what are important. Gun laws are really insignificant. Crime is going to be low in places like Japan and Switzerland, with or without guns and gun laws. Crime is going to be high in places like Newark, Detroit and St. Louis as it typically has always been. Better laws and crime control existed in the US before liberal progressives took over in the late 50's and early 60's. The liberalization of the criminal justice system and ethnic population shifts were big drivers of crime increases. Let's see some of your magic gun control laws that will reduce crime anywhere they are plugged in.
I've dodged nothing. I've merely referred to the importance of using empirical study that isolate gun effects. Given you haven't referred to any and have made inappropriate remarks over those studies, you're but a victim of ideology led spurious relationship We have studies in different time periods, different states, different countries and different forms of analysis (time series, cross sectional and panel). A literature review will confirm what I've said: the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. You may want to hide from the evidence and make ridiculous claims about its nature, but that only advertises that you haven't bothered to research the topic. Talking about natural experiments is a nonsense. There is no way of using those methodologies with any conviction (the best we get are the quasi-natural experiments as first demonstrated by the likes of Card and Krueger in labour economics). Given the multiple variables that need to be controlled, an econometric methodology is typically adopted. You'd know that if you had perused the literature. International analysis of crime is rarely done. That reflects the nature of 'hidden crime' (which varies across, for example, business cycles) and the lack of internationally consistent data (e.g. British official crime data has previously included misreporting of crimes through bogus calls). One could try and use 'victim surveys' but those typically exclude key groups such as juveniles. One could also restrict the analysis to homicides but that would be problematic as deriving a 'gun control' variables is difficult (plus control variables also typically are inconsistent and will produce empirical bias) Depends on the study; i.e. its research question and the variables required to ensure standard empirical bias is avoided. Duggan (2001, More Guns, More Crime, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109, pp 1086-114), for example, will be quite distinct from Mocan and Tekin (2006, Guns and Juvenile Crime, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol 49, pp 507-531) , who- with a more specific research question- conclude that after "[c]ontrolling for a very large number of personal and family characteristics and exploiting the time variation in criminal activity and gun availability,...gun availability at home is positively related to the propensity to commit crime for juveniles". This isn't interesting. This only informs us of the need to use properly conducted empirical studies that avoid making spurious relationship. You've really only attacked your previous comments on here. Gun prevalence is certainly not the most substantive factor impacting on crime rates. Who said that it is? Just because other factors are more important (e.g. inequalities) that provides no rationality to ignore the significance of gun control measures. We already have gun control variation in the States and we already have evidence that shows tighter gun control leads to lower homicide rates. Try, for example, Kwon and Baack (2005, The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, Vol 64 Issue 2, pp 533-547): This study posits that one of the reasons for these conflicting results is the use of individual laws as the major variable. Instead, this study uses a holistic and comprehensive measure of state gun control laws, grouping states into extreme and lax gun control states. A multivariate linear regression analysis is used to investigate the relationship between a set of determinants, including the holistic gun control measure, and firearm deaths per 100,000 inhabitants of each state. The results show that comprehensive gun control legislation indeed lowers the number of gun-related deaths anywhere between one to almost six per 100,000 individuals in those states that have the most extreme gun-related legislation.
I provided an example for you but it apparently went over your head...Let me put it this way....If you are unarmed and the 'bully' is armed you are at the bully's mercy. Keep in mind that only the law-abiding will be turning in their guns.
