You mean this quote, where you said "I will always have the authority if I have a gun and you don't".... THAT one???? You had a meaning other than the one implied? Really? Interesting.
You have already told us that you reject any gun study based solely on your biased ideology, and now you expect me to believe that you have had a miraculous change of heart and want to fairly and objectively peruse peer reviewed studies? Really?
No....The scenario is true albeit made up. Apparently I over-estimated your ability to conceptualize beyond the obvious. OK then let's get concrete....1 guy has a gun, the other guy has no gun. The guy with the gun is taking stuff from the unarmed guy. Who has the ultimate power?
I'm glad you have given some studies to look at. They of course do not even prove your point of "more guns= more CRIME"---remember the word "CRIME?" The studies from Duggan and Mocan you vaugely infer to prove your point are of course limited and based on false reasoning. FBI surveys of prisoners show that the vast majority of guns used by criminals are not purchaced by them by legal means. Using sales of "Guns & Ammo" (Duggan), and polling juveniles about having access to guns in their homes (Mocan) does not even address my question about proving gun control laws deterring crime. The "variables" of ethnicity, moral and cultural values and degree of criminal punishment are the crime "factors." These are what should be in any study. You then give me this "Gun Related Fatalities" study by Kwon and Baack that you say shows that gun control laws reduce the rate of CRIME. Taking a closer look at this study I can conclude it is an underhanded attempt to mask the ineffectiveness of worthless gun control laws. There are many problems in this study, the first being this study is only for one year (2000). Is that not a problem for you? The population this study tests is ALL gun related fatalities, not CRIME related fatalities where guns are used. Of the deaths 57.9 are suicides, and only 37.7% are actual gun related homocides, the rest are accidents, legal interventions and others. They somehow take the 12 states with the highest and lowest amounts of gun control laws and stir this into the pot. They don't differentiate between the more common suicides, with less common homicides, or between the more violent urban areas with less violent rural areas inside each individual state. This was done to deliberatly confound the data. They then try to show with corrupted data that violent crimes are related to gun control laws. I asked you for studies that proved that gun control laws reduce crime--especially violent crime. I do not consider using a gun to kill oneself as part of violent crime statistics, and honest researchers would not either. Is this the best you can come up with? Perhaps you and your friends in this research area can look at a more realistic study to understand crime: The Ten Most Dangerous Cities List. It wouldn't take long, and you could do it for all the years they have data on it. You will find that virtually all of these hellholes have: large ethnic enclaves of Blacks and Hispanics---that have correspondingly high deficiencies in moral values (letting their children be in gangs, low conviction rates, tolerance for narcotics, and so on...), and mayors who are liberal democrats with corresponding liberal controlled city governments. I would also like any study that has proven any effective decrease in violent crime by: The Gun Control Act of 1968, Brady Bill or any other American gun control law in the last 50 years.
Afraid you're showing innocence again. Anybody that knows this literature will refer to how we don't prove. The clue is in the use of 'hypothesis test': one rejects or fails to reject. We have two studies that certainly support the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. Duggan uses a proxy (which he supports convincingly) to ensure a suitably diverse data set capable of avoiding empirical bias. The other article, by referring to juveniles, provides a means to introduce a more diverse set of variables (capable of controlling, for example, parental control issues). I can appreciate your need to make unsupportable dismissal. For example, Duggan's results "suggest that approximately one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides, relative to nongun homicides, can be explained by reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun. These gains have been concentrated in the states with the largest relative reductions in gun ownership". These results are obviously inconsistent with your bias. Unlike you, I came into this debate with no pre-conceived opinion. I've merely reviewed the scientific evidence. Another study that you don't like? Didn't see that coming! You fellows are quite predictable in your assault on the empirical process Cross-sectional analysis isn't a fault. That's a ridiculous claim. You're given random remark, rather that appreciating the empirical methodology adopted and its inconsistency with your bias. Given guns impact on suicide and crime rates, it is quite valid to include them in the study. Now if you'd like to suggest that creates bias you'd have to assume that the suicide reduction rates are so significant that they disguise a homicide reduction effect. That of course would be inconsistent with the rest of the evidence. Poor remark. They use the upper and lower quartiles in order to avoid standard criticisms over assuming linear relationships. You have been provided with numerous studies that fail to reject the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. We can refer to others of course, from the various studies by Cook & Ludwig to the likes of Gius (2009, The effect of gun ownership rates on homicide rates: a state-level analysis, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 16, pp 1687-1690). And be a victim of making spurious conclusion? No thanks. I'll continue to refer to properly conducted hypothesis testing The severity of your ideological limitation is becoming apparent. Why do you think pro-gunners tend to be right wing authoritarians that support racist attitudes?
And you have the nerve to criticize ME for taking your post wrong? What the heck is that line supposed to mean? Simple grammar could help you here. I have no idea what "scenario" you're referring to, and I don't know what you think is "made up".
You continue to make vague dismissals, failing to present anything of relevancy: such as flawed econometric methodology or, through the comparison of papers, example of empirical bias. All you have- and its all rather dull- is a dodgy ideology that you utilise to ignore scientific evidence. Im not interested in any race rants. It is clear, however, that many of the pro-gunners also exhibit authoritarian views over race relations. Of course it would be wrong to suggest that the two are necessary linked. The positive (at least statistically) relationship exists and perhaps deserves further exploration in psychology research strategies. However, I certainly wont be giving a platform for race rants so thats my last comment on the issue. I come from a gun owning backing and do not support gun bans. However, I have bothered to review the evidence and come to an objective conclusion. I dont use my ideology to weakly blubber its biased (but I cant show any bias). Indeed, Ive adopted an approach on here that includes providing research that the pro-gunners should be using such as the impressive work by Kleck. This is a rather low powered comment. If, for any reason, my family felt unsafe of course we would consider returning to gun ownership. That circumstance doesnt exist. Given my objectivity Im also able to appreciate that- in terms of probability- Im safer in an area with low gun prevalence rates.
The SCOUS has interpreted the 2nd Amendment to say that CITIZENS may keep and bear arms, and in the real world that is all that counts. I am fairly happy with the status of firearm freedom here in the USA. However I will not be marvelously happy until all firearms and destructive devices will be decriminalized. (not weapons of mass destruction) Rev A
The question how of firearms relate to society etc is not the issue as far as I am concerned. Statistics such as mortality vs. number of firearms etc do not apply because they can not measure freedom, or happiness or how effective they would be in a natural disaster with prolonged absence of authority, i.e. police. HelOh no, the statistics do not mean too much in the real world because there are too many variables that should be plugged in to the equation that would determine the worth or value of firearms and the benefits of firearm ownership. I have issues with some of the studies that some statistical information is derived from. Nearly all anti firearm propaganda are funded in some way by groups like ’Extremely concerned ER physicians’ and other groups dedicated to ‘cradle to the grave personal security‘. Even if there is no unethical hocus pocus going on in the creation of tests polls etc that birth the pro gun control statistics I would bet that there is some spin to give favorable results that promote the strict oversight and regulation of all firearms. It’s my opinion that many pro firearm control people are not being completely honest when they say they don’t want to ban all firearms. No they probably would agree that a .22 rifle with low power ammo and maybe a shotgun may be permissible after a year or five of safety courses special insurance being obtained and additional fees and such, anything to keep guns out of the hands of the average citizen. My paranoia is healthy paranoia for I have seen what happens in other countries once the anti gun pro gun control jackboot er' ..foot is in the door. So I say the less gun control the more overall freedom. Good gun control is no gun control eh? Rev A
Were everyone allowed to carry guns without restriction, as the constitution permits, 9/11 would never have happened.
At least Reiver has been more forthcoming than yourself on his views on guns. The peer reviewed gun studies he gave contained enough biased ideology on their own. I must be asking way too much. There appear to be no comprehensive studies on the effects of worldwide or American gun control laws as they effect crime---moreover, violent crime over the last 50 some years. A peer reviewed study by people in the sociology/psychology camp is not going to have anywhere near the depth and accuracy of an FDA drug review study, and that's okay. But when the political agenda of a study like that of Kwon and Baack is so apparent by its stated "goals" and manipulated data, that its results can not be taken seriously, I will reject it. I do not feel that I am prejudiced if I base my feeling of person safety while being in any given area (at least in the US) on its homocide rate, or by going to a website like SpotCrime.com to better understand where crimes are taking place. In fact I would feel less safe in an area that was known for having strong gun control laws (Los Angeles, Washington Heights in NYC, Chicago, Baltimore and Washington DC in particular). If I were to drive into a state that did not allow my Concealed Carry Permit, I would be potentially less able to defend myself, and thus feel less safe. The chances are I will never have to dig out my gun and use it because I have enough wisdom to avoid the dangerous areas, that have the dangerous people, that would use their usually illegal guns to assault me.
This is standard anti-intellectualism. I've referred to articles that have been published in quality peer-reviewed journals. They don't agree with your bias. Unfortunately you haven't been able to be objective and provide a reasoned response. Further nonsense. All we need are academics who understand econometric methods. You're ignoring the research and failed to offer any valid rationale for it, preferring instead to make bogus accusations
As I have pointed out earlier...the Kwon and Baack study ultimate goal was to link firearm deaths with gun control laws. What is the main purpose of gun control laws? It is obvious, it is to deter crime. Not to reduce the amount of suicides or gun accidents. What was the point of the Assault Weapons Ban? Was it to eliminate the bayonet lug so people would not stab themselves to death? Was it to limit the magazine capacity so people would only have 11 chances to shoot themselves? No and No. So when Kwon, et el based their sample population from states with highest and lowest amount of "holistic" gun laws, they should have only used the 37% of gun deaths related to homicides only. When over 62% of your test subjects deaths are not directly related to the gun laws that they were originally intended for, THAT is deception. The data is too corrupted to support any valid conclusion that is INFERRED :more gun laws=less crime. Using data from just one year is also known as "cherry picking."
The ultimate goal was to test the hypothesis that gun control laws have a significant impact. That goal was achieved. Wrong again. The analysis looks at both crime effects and suicide effects. A review of that analysis will inform you that significant crime effects and significant suicide effects from gun prevalence exists. Your attempts at criticism have no power. Another ridiculous comment. Cross-sectional analysis is arguably the most popular choice in econometric analysis. This reflects numerous data issues, including ensuring consistent and adequate control variables. Your false accusations only show your lack of objectivity
So, I'll give you that the testing methods are accurate, but the whole test (Kwon) and the motivation behind it is corrupted. But you must feel the ends justify the means. Please show me any federal, state or local gun control law that lists a main intent of the law to be the reduction of suicides. Give me even one gun law that lists suicide prevention anywhere in it. There are laws that mandate trigger locks, loaded chamber indicators, etc---as they relate to the insignificant amount of gun accidents each year, but suicide reduction is not crime reduction. Maybe it is in Kwon's, Baack's and your minds, but not in anyone's with a capacity for common reasoning. Have you not even read a single American gun law for yourself? A fanatic is someone who redoubles their efforts after they know the cause is lost.
You must feel that your dogmatic rant somehow justifies you to use 'poison the well' fallacies. You have already implicitly admitted that you reject any study that might put guns in a bad light, regardless of their methodology and how their peers have received the work itself. Ironically, I feel compelled to inform you that the use of dogma is no valid response to an imagined dogma. Try some critical thinking and see how that works for you.
Repeating your nonsensical claims will not suddenly make them relevant. The approach adopted is correct, with the methodology able to test the impact of gun control on deaths. The results are also consistent with the more general analysis, with significant crime and suicide effects both found. Why would I need to do that? That gun control has been studied extensively in suicidology is just a matter of fact. Your argument is essentially (even if you don't realise it) that suicide effects from gun control are so large that the significance of crime effects are unknown. That isn't supported by the evidence, as shown by the multiple studies that I've referenced
A better guide: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html Again, the crux of the issue should be a delineation of the murders by race. The homicide rate by firearm among whites is probably comparable to the more violent European cities or Canada. This is left-wing propaganda because it ignores the OBVIOUS.
Try presenting something a little more high powered (particularly something that avoids misrepresentation through raw data)
I will reject any evidence, idea or study based on sound reasoning, especially when the evidence is presented with smoke and mirrors. Just as you have been critical in so many scores of instances in this forum, I will do the same. If I were so closed-minded and so blinded by my own supposed ideology, then I wouldn't be asking for studies from the others in the gun control camp. In the same way, if I were wanting evidence of Bigfoot, I would ask for evidence from the cryptozoologists interested in his supposed existance. If they gave evidence that I thought was deceptive, contrived or otherwise wrong, I would let them know. The Kwon study in my opinion is smoke and mirrors. It did not even accept the hypothesis that more guns=more crime, but you have of course remained silent about it, as I doubt you would be critical of any data that did not support any of your personal views...that remain unknown. Based on comprehensive studies, the preponderance of the evidence has led me to conclude that gun control laws do not reduce crime (suicides excluded). The AP reported "an independant CDC taskforce reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and manditory waiting periods and firearms registration. None of the studies (were) done by the federal government. In every case, a CDC task force found 'insufficent evidence to determine effectiveness.'" www.vdare.com/articles/CDC study...
Your posts suggest otherwise. I've seen no evidence that you are capable of considering the research with objectivity. You go for unsupportable calls of bias, failing to appreciate just how to dismiss specific paper. Take someone like Lott. Now I could whinge and whine that he's biased and therefore we should ignore his publications. However, I don't. Instead I refer to alternative sources and show how his conclusions have been reliant on empirical techniques that have been proved to be flawed. The most comprehensive study has already been referenced. You've dismissed it as you believe the suicide reduction effects are substantial. There's a level of irony in that view, given you'd tacitly supporting gun control in terms of public safety concerns
Are you saying the Kwon study is more comprehensive than the CDC's? Are you actually telling me that I should rely on the data on one study from 24 states from just one year than from one that took data from 51 studies over many years? I like the concept of reproducibility. If I use this medication it will likely have X effect every time I use it, every year I use it, just like it when it was when it has been used by everyone else. How reproducible has the Kwon test been? Why didn't they take the data from just the gun homicides and run it through to compare with the data containing majority suicides? My own belief is that is that they tried to use the homicide data only at first, but after playing with the numbers they found if they mixed in suicides and changed the format to "all firearms fatalities" that they could start the study to prove their bias. I can't prove that Kwon and Baack used reverse engineering in their test, but it seems plausible. By direct observation reasonalbe people can look at the places with strict gun control laws (Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and Washington DC), see the murder victims piled up like cordwood and reason gun laws don't work.
I'm saying that I've referred to a peer reviewed journal that, using state level data and appropriate econometric techniques, demonstrates that your objectivity is non-existent. Again you offer deliberate misrepresentation. The paper uses the upper and lower quartiles in order to avoid standard criticisms over assuming linear relationships. Your inability to make accurate remark over the methodologies being employed gives you away somewhat! Your own belief, without knowing it, is that the positive consequences of gun control on suicide effects are substantial. Of course that wouldn't be consistent with the evidence which shows generally significant crime and suicide effects Finishing with spurious relationship abuse further gives you away!
