How is this a "better guide"? Be specific, please. WHAT is "left-wing propaganda", as it applies to this? Sounds like a pretty convenient argument to me. Any ill, just blame the Liberals, eh?
Oh Really?. Ha, I'm sure you meant to state that otherwise, but you must admit your error IS funny. Here's the flaw in your stance: It is clear, based on your remarks, that you will reject any study that disagrees with your world views. Evidence: You previously stated here "Gun control studies are very corruptable, I would almost call them "junk science." " You also implicated these studies as being politically biased when you said: "I would much rather see new ideas based on reasoning, than a stack of data by politicians and social scientists." Your bias is quite clear, friend. Your own words confirm this, and I challenge you to find me saying something equally irrationally biased. Good luck with that. Err, you WOULD if you also accompanied this supposed new approach (as you did) by poisoning the well with false charges of political bias saying: "The peer reviewed gun studies [Reiver] gave contained... biased ideology". So, on the one hand you appear to be logical and reasoned while at the same time using a broad brush to paint these studies as "biased ideology". A fairly weak and convenient argument I'd say. Interesting argument. You claim that I'm biased in my arguments yet you don't know what, in particular my alleged "bias" actually is. I'm afraid your logic leaves something to be desired. Accusations are easy,...... a reasoned argument can be more difficult. Studies that you cannot refer to? The studies that Reiver referred to were done AFTER that CDC review was done. The CDC asked for more studies to be done and they were. It's odd that you would now have a problem with that. Worthy of note, in that CDC review they also found that John Lott's work, that claimed to show that concealed carry laws lower crime rates was flawed. They said in the report: "Lott and Mustard and those who used these authorsÂ’ data did not adjust for missing information by using population denominator data that corresponded to crime numerator data. Thus, Lott and MustardÂ’s denominator numbers were often too high, leading to underestimated crime rates in regions with poor reporting."..."The relationships among available studies of shall issue laws by data source and unit of analysis indicate that most studies of these laws suffer from basic data problems associated with county-level information."
Hi. I haven't read this whole thread, but I just wanted to check in and see if you've made any progress with the gun ban.
My main complaint with you is that in this gun forum you critique those who question the effectiveness of gun control, yet give no clear position of your own on the subject. I think the only thing I was able to pry out of you was your mention of the "revolving door justice system." If I only looked at peer reviewed studies done with strict methodology, and then ignored all the other evidence, I wouldn't be a very logical person. I would probably be more like Reiver, who says he bases his feeling of safey from gun crimes based on the Kwon study and others that generally support his viewpoint. (I don't even believe he really believes in his own views, but he is trying to save face.) You never commented about suicides being mixed in with crime statistics. By your silence on the issue you must endorse the idea that suicides must be included in all crime and gun control discussions--but only if they are firearm related suicides (that by statistics from 2001, firearms were 55.1%). Do you feel threatened by suicides, or a bullet from a stray suicide attempt, like Reiver? Let me agian clarify my positions on gun control: The presence or absence of guns have little, if any effect on crime, especially violent crime over time. One must look at the data over tens and hundreds of years. In a global, historical review, I would dismiss Lott's work as well as Kwon's. What I have been saying all along, is that crime is a function of a given area's people, culture and moral values (mores, etc.). Crime is controlled by the level of punishment inflicted on the felons. Unlike trying to prove gun control laws and the presence of guns are main driving forces, or even significant driving forces in reducing crimes, I can plug in my theory and have it work in understanding crime trends in most any situation around the world. Taking the 250% crime increase in the US that started in the mid 1960's, if I were to believe it was related to gun control laws, there would be no evidence. The first major gun law in that time was 1968, and it had no impact. I can reject the gun law hypothesis based on (MY OWN) sound reasoning, without the benefit of some peer reviewed study. If I were to believe the "more guns=more crime" theory then gun availability must have gone up 250% from the early 1960's on up to the 1990's. Maybe the effeciency or "hit probability" of the average weapon used by criminals in their acts went up 250% very suddenly in the mid 1960's. I don't believe all the felons suddenly began using AR-type weapons as the typical weapon used in crimes have been .22 rifles and handguns along with shotguns as they have been for decades. Liberals like BF Skinner and Jared Diamond avoid the obvious in their theories. So many liberals in the gun control industry can't see the trees for the forest, the people for their actions, and the felons for the guns they use. Are you so hung up on details that you can't, or won't see the broader picture?
Another low powered comment! I refer to peer reviewed studies because of the importance of avoiding spurious conclusion. I don't pick and choose from raw data in order to keep some ideological limitation intact. Instead I objectively study the quality empirical literature and, from literature review methods, craft conclusions. Those conclusions are simple: 'more guns=more crime' cannot be rejected; 'gun control=fewer deaths' cannot be rejected. You obviously do not welcome those conclusions, but it is a shame that you have been so insistent on making bogus claims of bias as you trample all over objectivity
Your critical thinking has let you down I'm afraid. Let's look at your flawed logic: 1) You cannot dispute your own quoted words that expose your views to preclude the evidence. This is called dogma and not effectively rational. 2) You chose instead to attack me (and Reiver) and make suppositions as to my own views which are irrelevant to the conversation anyways. I find factual evidence far more compelling than personal opinions based on ideology, personally. More insipidness. I do not have access to the Kwon study and thus will not comment on it specifically. Can you really fault me for that? Good, then we are getting somewhere. Your claims as to a need for "data over tens and hundreds of years", is simply lacking. Modern trends demand modern data. Simple. I have never claimed that gun laws are a major driver in crime rates, but I DO agree with the findings that they can impact it positively. You appear to be hung up on absolutes, looking only for black and white answers in a multicolored world. When you only look at raw data, then you are likely to make spurious conclusions from them. This is the very reason for studies that control for factors that tend to skew the numbers. Look, if only looking at raw data were the answer, then you would have to conclude that alcohol sales are directly related to driving fatalities. If you look up the numbers, you'll see that since 1982 the percent of traffic fatalities attributed to alcohol has almost been cut in half, while during the same period of time alcohol sales have approximately doubled. http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-dr...statistics.htm http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus..._sales_by.html This analogy shows you clearly that you cannot simply look at the raw data as you have with guns to ascertain anything meaningful. We all know that drinking and driving is dangerous and leads to fatalities and yet the raw data does NOT substantiate this. One must approach the issue more scientifically and study the available data with allowances for extraneous factors. "gun control industry" ???? Really? I could ask the same of you, friend. You focus on studies you cannot validly address while never offering any by yourself that actually refute their findings. You have chosen ideology over reason and now want to act as if this is somehow logical or rational. All in all, you make a very weak argument as to this.
"Try presenting something a little more high powered (particularly something that avoids misrepresentation through raw data)" Reiver You can't do accounting (i.e. your beliefs in Keynesian economics) and now you admit that you have no understanding of statistics or the capacity to research them. What else CAN'T you do?
You might want to try and make sense! I have a passable knowledge of econometrics. I'm no expert of course. I tend to employ the experts instead. You won't like the econometric approach as we have a double whammy. Not only does it produce results inconsistent with your bluff; you do not understand the methodologies adopted and therefore you cannot adapt the bluff accordingly
Personally I feel your comments are spot on! The studies concerning gun violence that I have seen are usually committed (ha ha) ok written or funded or requested by groups such as; 'ER MDs That Exceedingly Hate Guns and the dummies that own them'. They are as suspect as a pro-gun article created by a NRA fringe group would be to a 'hand wringing anti-gun anti personal freedom type' of feller'. Sorry I do not trust most of the studies proffered. Even if I did there is a disconnect between the real world and numbers on a paper. A good example is that I value the right to keep and bear a firearm far far FAR more than having a statically (insignificant) higher probability of being adversely effected by firearms! Many studies say we are in more danger owning a firearm than not. Not in my life and circumstances. No need to go into details...its just that while those stats look wonderful on paper they do not translate into real world events with any degree of credibility. Its like if a home invasion is occurring would you rather have a firearm or a telephone? I want both! Yep I know that statically speaking the chance that I will be home invaded is around zero, it has to happen to many families. If I am one of those numbers that is does happen to I want my .45 in my hand not a telephone. And I want my rights observed! The USA is culturally different, we value freedom more than a UK type who has forfeited his gonads for what? Perceived safety? Franklin had if right, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety! Daymn what happened to all the cowboys? Additionally I want the peace of mind knowing I can mow down a army if need be ha ha ...that was a little humor with an element of truth installed , being able to take out an entire army is a joke, maybe a few hundred gang bangers would be more realistic…~ Budda budda bye! Rev A
You do like to play pretend. You haven't reviewed the literature, nor do you have the means to offer any reasoned accusation of bias. We're left with the reality: the pro-gun herd hide from the empirical research as it necessarily creates dissonance and highlights the foolishness within their ideological spin
Ah' a mind reader! I hate to drop this on you but the accuracy rate of paranormal types is below five percent. How could you know what I read? I read several links, well until it was obvious they were spun to achieve a certain idea, ie that firearms are of no use when it comes to safety. I was not referencing the police and FBI data. The raw data or cooked data (ha ha) from the FBI etc are just that raw data. Except in debates they have little use. We do not hide from data, because the data has nothing to do with the real issue. And the real issue is? We love guns. We vote. We have very powerful PACs. Safety while important goes on the back burner and freedom sits on the front. That is the issue and why excessive gun control fails and will fail. We here in the USA value freedom more than cradle to the grave safety. Now are we au fait with the real issue? More? I promise just one more paragraph ~ I want a gun if I am about to be victimized, the safety Nazis can threaten the intruder or thug with statistics and big reams of paper. I don’t want someone overly concerned with unattainable safety constricting my god given rights. They can choose to remained unarmed, however please do not tell me what weapon I can carry etc. or if I can keep and bear arms at all! I have always said that in the USA freedom to keep and bear arms as well as our other rights and freedoms are far more important than a couple of points in a study or computer print out, that is the issue and that is what will define gun control for the foreseeable future. Rev A
Uh huh, What does swami MDF have to say about my love life? Again gun control is not loved by gun lovers. The reasons are obvious.That is a freebie from the great swamie Reva. Rev A
You don't refer to the evidence as you haven't read it. We know you won't as you show contempt for the basics
A fairly typical response from your ilk, I'm afraid. It always comes back to false choices that Reiver nor I are even espousing. Namely the banning of guns and the forbidding of self-defense. We do not need to choose between enhanced collective safety and Constitutional freedoms. These issues CAN be addressed without making those sorts of false choices. You are so wrapped up in your dogma and irrational fears of confiscation that you are unable to address fairly and objectively science that looks at the gun effect.
The facts don't bear that out, I'm afraid. I suppose that truth isn't necessarily important to you, though.
'It' is singular, you have referenced posted links to more than one study in the discussions we have had about gun control. Unless your position changes from thread to thread post to post. I show contempt for the attitude of hand wringing girley man over the top gun control advocates who wish to inflict their ideas on me. If I remember correctly your position wasn't all that radical. However, I even though the intentions of even moderate gun control proponents are to be treated with suspicion (what I call healthy paranoia) because their goals are often more than the welfare of the citizenship. The Franklin quote I posted describes my sentiments completely and fully. Rev A
Ben Franklin was a rational and reasoned thinker while your post above is anything BUT that. You really shouldn't hide your irrational fears behind the face of a true patriot. Franklin said many things, but to imply that he would support YOUR particular dogma is grievously presumptuous.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, It is your ilk, your leaders that whores our founding fathers words that support the concept of freedom which includes the rights of USA citizens to keep and bear arms. I can be reasonably sure that most gun control advocates are concerned with safety above freedom. Freedom is a natural RIGHT that USA citizens enjoy. Government mandated cradle to the grave safety is not a right, function nor a responsibility of our government! Many Gun control advocates are an enemy of freedom loving people for they want CONTROL. Control because we firearm and freedom advocates will not conform to their Orwellian idea of a perfect (socialist or maybe even dictatorial) society. They pine to restrict freedom rather than expand it. They seem anxious to create more laws, burden the firearm owner with more fees and licenses, including forcing the firearm owner to purchase insurances and to provide funds for other liabilities etc. So how can you state such a falsehood, and claim I am irrational when its you that seem out of touch with reality! Its my opinion that Franklin would NOT support the above i.e. the loss of freedom and the expansion of government control as well as extracting mandatory fees and other types of revenues from law abiding firearm owners. I will close with a statement of fact from a well known gun control advocate ; "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3. Rev A
Mr Danct, Since you seem to have a problem with reading/understanding my reply I have decided to help you by breaking down and clarifying (I hope!). You made an huge mistake when you thought I was irrational. I know your assesment wasnt malicious, so I hope to repair your misconceptions ; {> I was referencing Reivers claim that I hadn't read the material he has posted concerning gun control. He said I did not read ‘it’. In reality I read several links provided by the pro control advocates here at PF including Reivers. So the word 'it' should of been replaced with ‘them’ because 'it' suggests one study (and as I said I read more than one). That means I was correct unless his claims and overview of gun control is different in each thread. It should remain the same in every thread. Discrepancies suggest deception etc. That means that I consider cradle to the grave safety advocates wimpy. And it means I do not like for anyone especially the wimpy types attempting to curtail my god given rights. I am all for you or an extreme safety advocate exercising all the safeguards they feel is necessary, however please do not inflict those (irrational?) ideas on me, I have a freedom based life to live sans helmet layers of body armor, a parachute for the stairs (in case of a fall) or one of those "help I have fallen and I can't get up" pagers etc… Still we aren’t truly free because we are citizens controlled by a government, but the USA with the lax gun laws etc is one of the most free on this ole' earth. That means that Reivers gun control sentiments were not all that radical. However many GCA take a mile when we give them an inch. Additionally I feel there is an ulterior motive of gun control advocates other than safety and other stated goals. Well untill Mrs Brady actually came out and stated those ulterior motives. That means that this quote; “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety“. describes my sentiments completely and fully. I hope that helps! Rev A
Don't fib now! I've referred to your failure to objectively study the literature. We both know you haven't. When confronted with specific source, as we'd expect, you've merely tried to use the source to dismiss it (without success mind you!). That reflects an insistence on an ideological based approach, rather than correctly following an evidence-approached one
Looking at the big picture---This is Liberal Activist's thread "Ban all Guns." No one has come to his defense, not even you, and you are the only other person in this thread that has a problem with guns. Liberal Activist has not done much to defend his views as he is otherwise engaged, probably in an "Occupy Wall Street" demostration. You alone are left to carry the flag. I did look look at one of Cook and Ludwing's studies something about "The Social Cost of Gun Ownership." They have done similar studies that try to put guns in a bad light, and the study was funded by the Joyce Foundation. And you thought I had a problem with objectivity. The goal of the study was to link legal gun ownership with firearm deaths. They used the 200 most populus counties (I though at first it was countries, to my dissappointment) in another attempt to hide the fact that rural areas with low amounts of blacks and hispanics are generally free of gun "crime." Of course, suicides were about half the total of deaths to further demonize guns. If the gun control people want to reduce gun availibility, then what do they think people should use if they want to commit suicide? What is more fast and easy, that requires little itelligence to use, is more effective, and causes less collateral damage than guns? If they were somehow to succed in banning all guns, what in the name of public safety and service should they endorse? People have been killing themselves long before the advent of guns. The very high rate of suicides in Japan, which has virtually no guns or gun suicides might tell you something. The question is "why shouldn't someone use a gun?" They will kill themselves anyway, just like they do in Japan and the Netherlands. You may need a new thread, but what gun control measures do you endorse (that will reduce violent crime)?
Benjamin Franklin said many things, friend. He also said: * "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." * "If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." * "Observe all men, thyself most." * "Those that won't be counseled can't be helped." * "Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning." * "Admiration is the daughter of ignorance." * "An investment in knowledge pays the best interest." I would hazard to guess that most of these particular quotes by Franklin are at odds with your particular dogma. Just hang onto the ones that apply to guns though,..... that's all you need right? We live in Democratic Republic, friend. MY "leaders" are YOUR "leaders", and vice versa. Your imagined conspiracies are not rational, sorry. Based on what exactly? A fearful supposition? Hardly rational, by any measure. More misguided suppositions. I suppose we fear what we don't fully understand, but still not a rational response, nonetheless. Demonizing those with whom you disagree does NOT gain you more knowledge, NOR does it display any ability to be rational. Sorry. Do you see the pattern of baseless demonizing? Definitely not a rational position. Your so-called "burdens" might seem like a "burden" to YOU, but might not be shared by others. You are inflating the "burden" and the wishes by others, to form an emotional reaction. We know that Appeal to Emotion fallacies are just that: fallacies. Fallacies are typically not rational. Ben Franklin said: "Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning." I believe he fully understood the value of growth and progress. "statement of fact" eh? You should be more careful, friend. Truth is important, and your bogus quote above is not truthful. Not even close. Ben Franklin said: "If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.", but you clearly failed to take his advice here. The tip-off for you should have been the misspelled "Sara". Look here. And here....... "statement of fact"........ Ha! Good one.
Has it not occurred to you that we who wish to see stricter gun laws are NOT afraid of the scientific process? We would like to see MORE not LESS studies on this topic. On the other hand, we see that there is general fear by your ilk in this process. Afraid, I suppose of what the results will actually show. Just look how the NRA pushed through the Tiahrt Amendment that limits outside access to some of this data.
