You continue to attempt bland misrepresentation. I have no problem with guns. I do have a problem with the libertine pro-gun herd who want to coerce a result that harms well-being. Rationality for you!
Why I do NOT trust gun control advocates ; "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. Disclaimer; Caps are for emphasis only ~ You are the fibber. I said I have read more than one document, and I have. I said the word ‘it’ meant a single document, it does. You or danct suggested otherwise. My original statement is true, so its now you that is being deceptive, either by choice or accident. I did read more than one document. The others? In my world there is no need for me to read the stats from an official organization, because I trust the site. I know the if one reads the numbers they indicate (if one strictly goes by those numbers) ‘one is less safe with a weapon for what ever reason. Most likely due to a novice shooting their toe off, or blowing away rover thinking its an intruder or something similar. Why read something I already agree with? I am sure that hand picked official studies presented by gun control advocates will not show anything other that guns are evil incarnate. Then, there are the documents and studies funded by firearm haters. Why should I completely read a document that was funded by some left wing spin master which blubbers about this and that when I already know what the conclusion will be? (firearms are bad). Those studies are irreverent to the real issue, which are our (citizens of the USA) RIGHTS. So I do not attempt to rebut hand picked official studies because they are usally accurate. However I do, in most cases disregard studies created and or funded by known anti gun advocates for obvious reasons. I have ALWAYS maintained that I would not care if I was 99% more likely to harm myself (according to the stats of a left spun study) and it was 99% more likely that I would be less safe in any kind of altercation if I owned a fire arm. Guess what? I would own a firearm because I know either I am in that 1% range when a firearm is useful or the stats are spun to read this way or that. In addition my RIGHTS, my essential liberties as Franklin said are more important to me (and should be to all freedom loving Americans) than a little security or perceived safety. Here is a synopsis of my paradigm ;>>> Our RIGHTS as citizens of the USA are far, far, FAR, more important* that unattainable cradle to the grave safety. <<<< (end) So studies and such that show this and that are of NO value because they have NO bearing on our GOD GIVEN rights to OWN AND BEAR firearms according to SCOUS. (that is SCOUS affirmed the RIGHT for US citizens to KEEP AND BEAR firearms, not the Militia, not the Police, NO, it's the free CITIZENS of the United States have that RIGHT. We won that right fighting sniveling hand wringing safety freaks like Ms Brady (Her socialist ambitions aside, I do emphasize with her loss and understand that here rabid hate for firearms more than likely wells from her husbands injury, however, in the case of Mr Brady being shot; if more people in the crowd would have been armed its probable that the trigger man perp would not have been able to injure as many, or maybe any victims before being shot dead by an armed law abiding citizen). In the end that is what is important not the statistical nonsense that many firearm opponents wield around like they mean something. In the real world, and the SCOUS, they don't. Rev A
EXCERPT>>>> <<<<<EXCERPT Libertine ? That would much better describe people (ie gun control advocates) that approve of Mrs Bradys words. And what exactly do you mean by well being (safety?). A couple of points in print out may or may not be attainable by restrictive gun control. Eating less fat and serving amounts would add up to far more personal safety and well being than Orwellian gun control If the stats from other countries are comparable the results are mixed. In any case cradle to the grave is not attainable. Its ridiculous really, do you know what the probabilities of being injured by a fire arm are? That will be revealed in the next reply (if I can find it). Rev A
Owning more than one gun myself, I do have a vested interest in guns and gun laws. I do not fear gun studies, but I will certainly voice my concern when I see an obvious problem with one. I would support stricter gun laws, only, and I mean only if they concentrate on punishing the felons who use them. I would support hanging most anyone found guilty of the deliberate use of a gun to kill someone during the commission of a violent crime. Take the Kwon and Cook studies that Reiver believes are among the very best in understanding firearms deaths and suicides. These tests, done only in certain areas of the US, would lead someone to believe that having more guns around you would lead to more suicides. When you look at international violent death rates it is obvious that many countries in Europe and Japan have much higher suicide rates than the US, and much lower rates of guns "being around." If I was to believe the Cook and Ludwig study that theorize "evil guns made them kill themselves" then Japan would not have a 16.72 rate per 100K of suicides---it would have hardly any suicides at all, b/c Japan has an insignificant amount of guns in private hands. The US has a rate of 12.06 per 100K. I try to plug the Cook and Ludwig .2 or .3 gun correlation stats into Japan and, suprise---total failure. Mabye the lack of gun ownership in Japan makes the people more depressed, less empowered and more likely to throw themselves in front of a train. www.gunsite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html Reiver painted himself into a corner with his biased studies and theories. Do ya think Japan has higher suicide rates because of the people and their culture, or because of all the nonexistant guns? I remember seeing something about the people in Japan killing themselves with swords, or flying their planes into ships. Since the gun control industry did not fund any economists to do any methodically precise studies on this evidence, it probably is just "spurious data" that can be rejected out of hand.
Gun control is consistent with a methdological individualist approach based on maximising well-being. In economics talk, utility. We don't need to measure it. We merely need to realise that, if externalities are ignored, coercion obviously leads to a reduction in overall utility. Eating fatty product can be quite consistent with optimality. The externalities, for example, from eating a hamburger is insignificant. More direct regulation is then often preferred (e.g. control over ingredients enabled in food stuffs). You demand that we ignore the coercion generated by our personal preferences. You therefore spit on the whole concept of freedom. The probability would be a variable. There is evidence, for example, that the psychological impact of gun ownership (particularly on youngsters) can increase the likelihood of being injured. For gun control we have to refer to measures such as the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun prevalence. That provides a means to measure the social costs generated by our preferences
Come now, 'Greataxe'. You have already admitted to rejecting any gun study that puts guns in a bad light. This position is ideologically driven and not logically driven. We have already been over this with me quoting your own words as to this, so your revisionism now looks rather weak and hollow, frankly. This reality is well-documented by numerous studies, friend. Other threads here have already touched on this fully. Guns simply do not have a perfect substitute. Now you're making spurious conclusions. You need to apply some critical thought to your position and you will see your error. Comparing Japan and the US suicide phenomena without controlling for cultural differences is more than naive, I'm afraid. The whole point of studies in general are to isolate a particular factor to see its effect on a particular function. You have done NONE of this in your example. This,... again...is a very basic error when you misrepresent a study as you have above. If you are as familiar, as you claim to be of this particular study, then you would know that science ceases to be science when the conclusions are emotional conjectures on morals, as you implied above. I am not familiar with this study in detail, but I am certain that they would not make claims as to "evil" guns. I know other studies have looked at the gun effect based on its availability in times of stress, depression or anger (daily living) and the results are very interesting.
I'm amazed that you would persist with using this bogus quote when I have taken the time to source you to two anti-control sites that explained their lack of validity. You see, apparently it's not enough to turn ones back on science for the sake of ideology, no, there are some anti-control zealots who actually make up quotes knowing that there will be a ready supply of eager and unquestioning zealots who will actually believe them. Amazing,.... I know.
I am happy you did my leg work for me. If the Brady quote is not valid I will stop using it. When I first sourced it I did check a couple of places to determine if it was valid. It seemed too good to be true, and it was I suppose. What I mean by too good to be true is that a anti-firearm, pro-gun control zealot (a word you are fond of using eh?) would have the constitution to publicly post their true feelings. Now concerning your posts, when I am not happy with a members comments, I usually skip their posts for a few days, and that is why I did not see your replies. I was going to reply to them today. Despite the invalidity of the Brady quote, I have personally spoken and corresponded to pro-gun control people that proffer the words that the website mistakenly attributed to Mrs Brady. I suppose they are too bright to post their true feelings! So in any case, even though I agree that the quote was invalid it does mirror many in the gun control vs. advocates of freedom ie gun control opponents. I only apologize for not more thoroughly checking out the validity of the quote, not the message. I also am aware of the seemingly (wisely silent) contempt for most that do not agree with the anti-freedom message, ie so called gun control. Too bad we, the firearm proponents and opponents of gun control have won the ideological, minds and hearts of those that interpret our constitution and how our laws are defined. That is what is important. My claim and the intent* is that the rights of USA citizens are far more important than the quest for an unattainable level of safety. ie Gun control (as a validating component of that quest). Rev A
There's no consistency in your claim. By demanding inefficiently low gun control you are, by definition, demanding greater coercion on US citizens
I am sure you understand the inaccuracy of your assertion. You are saying that (most) firearm proponents by wanting to abide by the constitution to keep and bear arms is harming the rights of those that are opponents of firearm ownership, i.e. so called gun control advocates* ? If so the problem with that concept is that to live in a society we must obey some rules and or guidelines aka the constitution. That means my, and those that are firearm proponents rules and guidelines are defined by the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Yours, and the idealized rules, and goals** of gun control advocates seem to come from an unholy marriage of Mein Kampf and the Communist manifesto, ha ha, yes, that was a bit melodramatic, but not by too wide of a margin. * (i.e. the RIGHT to bear arms as opposed to the WANTS of those that would discard some freedoms for a little temporary safety) So yes, we must or should use the constitution as a anchor to decide such issues that you raise. If we lived in a socialist country with no constitution guaranteeing the right of citizens to keep and bear arms*** along with an firearm friendly attitude early lawmakers etc, you may have a case. However, the reality is that most of our rights are defined by the bill of rights and the Constitution, and by the sentiments of our gun friendly founding fathers. So to rebut your allegations of inconsistency etc, I feel that the RIGHTS guaranteed by the Constitution and suggested by the Bill of Rights over rule the FEELINGS (not the rights of) the anti firearm proponents, and a good many of gun control advocates wants. I would add that the concept of Gun Control harms the goals of firearm opponents. That is because in their cry for what I see as the ill defined concept of 'gun control' they dilute (or hide) their true message and/or intent . Rev A
There's nothing inaccurate about it. You demand a coercive result that harms US citizens. That demand reflects an ideology that is inconsistent with the pursuit of freedom. There's no debate in it.
The best one I can think of is the 2nd amendment. Nuff said. I know libs cant see that though. Its pretty clear that we have the right?
Well, you SHOULDN'T be. Posting false and bogus quotes to enhance your argument is nothing to be proud of. Interesting, if not irrational argument. If I'm to understand you correctly, you're saying that even though your quote is bogus and your own ilk have condemned the use of it, that the quote is a valid indicator of Mrs. Brady's true feelings. This, in spite of the fact that there is no (as in zero) valid evidence that would indicate that this is here true feelings on this. In other words, you believe she feels this way because you SAY she feels this way. Kinda the tail wagging the dog, eh? Yes this is the same argument that you implied above already. It is audacious for its heavy reliance on weak assumptions and ill-informed and random correspondences. Wrong again. You only wish to wallow in a weak argument against the fewest of extremists. The Brady Center is not one of those. I'm afraid. Nice try though. I see. The false message, eh? It sounds as though you're chasing windmills. The rights of ALL Americans, right? If someone decided to bring a Gatlin gun into a movie theater during showtime, would the rights of the other patrons' rights be affected at all? Our Constitution has enumerated our rights with the provision that some rights do not infringe on others. The First Amendment is a perfect example of this AND the Second Amendment has also been found by our Supreme Court to have limitations as well. You seem to have been seduced by a concept of freedom that simply does not exist. Kafka once wrote: "All too often men are betrayed by the word freedom. And as freedom is counted among the most sublime feelings, so the corresponding disillusionment can be also sublime."
Then why don't you do that? As a citizen, you are well within your right to contact your local Congressperson and ask him/her to author an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 2nd Amendment, and making private possession of a firearm a Federal offense. However, you and I know that there is as much chance of that ever becoming law, as there is of the Montreal Canadiens winning the NBA Championship! Face it - you'll never win a fight against the gun lobby. Consider this... According to the CDC, an estimated 443,000 people in the United States die annually from cigarettes and secondhand smoke. 443,000 - thats forty-five times the number you posted of fatalities attributable to firearm violence. And what has been done to reduce that number? A few laws about smoking not being allowed in certain areas, and a huge increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes - that's about all. Cigarettes aren't outlawed, they're still readily available for purchase. Smokers keep on smokin' and dying, while tobacco companies keep making money. And if you think that the tobacco lobby has fought a hard fight, wait until you go against the gun lobby...
Ban all liberals ASAP!!! Guns are a 2nd amendment right. An armed society is a safe one. An armed society is one the govt fears.
Its easy to internalise the externalities created through cigarettes. Whilst we have to be careful with illegal supply, a Pigovian tax solves the problem. Guns, in terms of this comparison, shouldn't be any different
In any of the five boroughs of New York City, for every pack of cigarettes purchased (legally) a smoker will pay $1.01 Federal cigarette tax, $4.35 New York State cigarette tax, and $1.50 New York City cigarette tax - a whopping $6.86 per pack! You stated "...we have to be careful with external supply, a Pigovian tax solves the problem." NYC is seeing a resurgence in a crime once that had once almost disappeared - that being cigarette smuggling. Cigarettes are being brought in from states with low cigarette taxes (read: North Carloina), and sold in NYC without the appropriate state and city taxes being paid. Also, smokers are switching to lesser grade cigarettes. While there is no such thing as a "good" cigarette, smokers now find themselves unable to afford premium cigarettes, and switch to less-expensive brands which use lower-grade tobacco. That's why I'm exceptionally leery of Pigovian taxes - instead of curtailing the behavior that is taxed, they oftentimes seem to merely exchange an existing problem for a new one.
You're only confirming the gains to be had from federal policy The tax wedge is all that's required. The preferences of the individual continues to be relevant Given the irrelevance of the Coase Theorem, the Pigovian tax is typically the only option. Unless of course you want to go all anti-individualism on me and demand a ban
Gains? An increase in crime is a gain? You're overlooking the most obvious option - not attempting to influence individual behavior by means of taxation.
Indeed, the gains to be had from having less regional variation That would be an irrational celebration of the losses from coercion.
The Federal government imposes a tax upon cigarettes. Each state is them free to impose whatever tax it sees fit upon a pack of cigarettes. These "gains" you refer to would come at the expense of the rights of the states. Not imposing "sin taxes" is irrational? Hmmm....
You're the one referring to gains from federal policy Ignoring externalities is certainly irrational. Its the imposition of coercive losses after all
This is all nonssense. All studies of any merit show that gun ownership lowers crime and open concealed carry does as well.
I certainly don't seem to recall mentioning any gains from Federal policy. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to refresh my memory. "And while the House of Peers withholds Its legislative hand. And noble statesmen do not itch To interfere with matters which They do not understand, As bright will shine Great Britain's rays, As in King George's glorious days!" - Iolanthe W. S. Gilbert
I didn't say that you appreciated the consequences of your argument. Your suggestion that externalities can be simply ignored (which, by definition, makes your stance inconsistent with the basic features of freedom) does suggest you haven't thought this through
