To the contrary, mon ami! I believe wholeheartedly in the externalities - most specifically, the Law of Unintended Consequences! If anyone hasn't thought this through, I submit that it's misguided legislators who believe that a Pigovian-type tax is a valid means of social policy modification. As evidenced by recent trends in NYC, a Pigovian (and Draconian) tax on a pack of cigarettes in order to attempt to reduce the number of smokers, has resulted in more people smoking cigarettes of lesser quality - cigarettes that contain even more harmful additives and chemicals than more mainstream cigarettes. Additionally, this "sin tax" has spawned an increase in crime - most specifically, cigarette smuggling. A well-meaning - but misguided - attempt to modify social behavior (and raise revenue) by imposition of a Pigovian-type tax, has had the unintended consequences of increasing crime, and hastening the demise of smokers! Nevertheless, this is a topic best served in another thread. I suggest that we stick to firearms...
Quite alien to the evidence. Smuggling predates the Pigovian tax. We only needed brand loyalty and monopolistic competition. Tax has the desired effect through the impact on price. Folk claiim failure because demand still exists. That shows an innate ignorance of the nature of Pigovian tax. And if substituion effects exist? No problem, the tax is a supply and demand solution after all. You could refer to differential in taxes or more direct regulation (as you see with health & safety and foodstuffs), but you're merely exaggerating the issue. And guns? The transaction costs from illegal supply ae substantial but not prohibitive. While illegal supply would continue to exist, the tax solution involved would not have any negative knock-on effects. Indeed, depending on the price elasticity of demand in the legal market, the effects are likely to be signficantly positive: the reduction in quantity deamnded would reduce the available subsequent supply, via the secondary gun market and theft, in thei illegal market and therefore further increase tranaction costs
Heres my argument Guns don't kill people; people kill people Here's the proof put a gun on a table and tell it to kill you; video the results and post please The story would be different if you gave it to a criminal. Have you even seen the crime rate in Canada and England, do you even study statistics apparently not. It is a PROVEN FACT that when you allow guns that CRIME GOES DOWN!!!! Argue that. Why does it go down you ask? Simple... Why would a criminal care about gun laws; they can just get them illegally. The criminal now has a gun and the law abiding citizen doesn't; therefore the criminal can attack and not worry about the victim fighting back. A good example of gun control gone bad would be The Holocaust
You've fallen for a very basic error. You'd only have a point if guns had a perfect substitute. They don't. You're also reliant on the belief that gun access doesn't change behaviour; a fool-hardy assumpion given risk adversity has been found to impact heavily on the unarmed. You're making up stuff now. The published evidence shows that gun control in Canada has reduced homicide rates. The British evidence doesn't exist. Of course we'd expect that as the handgun fan was a reaction to a spree killing and the ownership of handguns was very low. The published evidence cannot reject the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. And that is factual!
Fact: When you resort to argument by slogan fallacies, as you have here, you have lost the argument before you have even begun. Try something original.
Ok. If i'm not right prove to me I'm wrong show me a graph or statistics. Get them from a non biased source. I would love to see something that proves me wrong. I <3
The problem is your complete innocence of the empirical process. Adopt basic literature review methods and your position would be instantly destroyed. To join the ranks of objectivity you should refer to analysis that correctly isolates gun effects; e.g. Gius (2009, The effect of gun ownership rates on homicide rates: a state-level analysis, Applied Economics Letters). This concludes "gun ownership rates have a statistically significant and positive effect on the homicide rates at the 10% significance level"
Are you fricken kidding me? First, crime statistics cannot really support your argument considering the fact that you cannot determine if a crime has been prevented because of weapons. All you can do is determine is how many crimes were caused with weapons. The only way to determine if crime rate was reduced BECAUSE OF WEAPONS is if you would ask each criminal "So did you decide not to mug that person because you thought they had a concealed weapon?" ... Yeah I do not think so. It has shown that after a state has adopted the Concealed Carry laws, on average in about 2 years after the laws took affect, crime rates IN GENERAL have gone down... Second: IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The second amendment right to be exact. Its usually referred to as "The Right to Bear Arms". Third, it doesn't matter if you ban guns or weapons from everyone... if a criminal wants a gun, they are going to get a gun. Think of the prohibition for example, alcohol was outlawed and what did criminals like Capone do? They got it and bootlegged it from Canada and criminals still got it somehow... You will never be able to take the guns out of criminals hands and for as long as they have them, you best believe I will be strapped and ready to protect my family as well as my self from any threat of death. -- So to sum this up, I would like to say, I am sorry to any family of a Lib that is anti gun because the day that something bad happens to you, unfortunately that person who is anti gun wont be able to protect your life.
this site is rather sub-par, its really hard to log into, I can only get in maybe 1 out of 4 attempts.
Yes I am afraid that is fact hurting the site. We have discussed this in detail, as well as other issues relating to a slow site in Feedback section. I have a fast cable modem, while I rarely have a difficult time opening PF, I do sometimes experience very slow page transitions, slow to the point of the site crashing, or just as exasperating the 20min edit limit expiring resulting in the unedited version of my reply or comment being posted. (this happens at least one out of five times I open the forum). One moderator ridiculed me (in a PM) for not editing my stuff before posting, however we all make mistakes eh? However this mod and I have had problems before, so maybe it was personal? Anyway, I am sure you will find the Mods here at PF are exceedenly helpful and easy to work with. Additionally I will tell you that the staff is aware of the problem and working on it, still its entirely aggravating. Rev A
I just bought my first Glock. Nice little GLOCK 27 .40, a subcompact pistol, but a nice back up and fits easier in my truck compartments.
It is straight forward to estimate an elasticity of homicide with respect to gun prevalence. That provides the means to test crime hypothesis. There's no point in pretending otherwise
very nice. i like glock but thee issue i have with them is that as you empty the magazine it gets top heavy and sloppy. other then that they in my opinion they are solid reliable firearms. as of nov 1 wisconsin will have concealed carry. i have a EAA Witness-P .45 that 4. will carry. i love it. very reliable.
Just a little more content would be great. Individual gun preferences aren't an excuse for irrational policy
actually sir i was replying to a man who wrote about his glock. please tell me how it is rational take guns from everyone? do u think if big government can take guns away from everyone including the criminals just by making a law against it? dont think so. criminals carry concealed weapons everyday in this country .... criminals are not allowed to carry guns and some how they carry them anyway... u think a ban would stop them from continuing this? not. secondly, it is our second amendment right to carry a weapon. third, i am not sure where you are from sir, but in wisconsin this is a hunting state a long with many others why stop hunting for people? fourth, to remove all guns from people would be removing the second amendment which in turn would ultimately be decided by the people and a national referendum vote would be held. the result would be to not go fourth because there are fortunately more people who want to protect them selves and their family from any threat of death. think about what just recently happened in california a man walked into a hair salon and shot 8 people including his ex wife! they played the 911 tape of a woman hiding in the bathroom frantic while this obviously psycho man was killing innocent people! if someone there was carrying they could have saved lives! stuff like this happens every day sir and people around this country don't know close to half of it because the liberal media only covers what they believe will get them the highest ratings at that one second in time. bottom line is law abiding citizens who carry can help save lives and not to mention help bring down the overall crime rates in a state. ...and your response?
I'm not interested in how you may justify a lack of content. I haven't said it is. I will, however, refer to rational gun control. Those that argue against such rationality, typically the pawns of influence groups that selfishly obsess over a pro-gun religion, are merely supporters of coercion. Your whole post was therefore a red herring
Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information. Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.[1] For example, in mystery fiction, where the identity of a criminal is being sought, an innocent party may be purposefully cast in a guilty light by the author through the employment of deceptive clues, false emphasis, "loaded" words or other descriptive tricks of the trade. The reader's suspicions are thus misdirected, allowing the true culprit to go (temporarily at least) undetected. A false protagonist is another example of a red herring. The reason I post the definitions of these ridiculous words is because you have no argument to anything I said except for using fancy words which most people probably have no clue what they mean. Everything I said above was the truth and yes, gun control is absolutely needed, but the debate in this thread is about BANNING ALL GUNS. As it says in its title. So before trying to insult me with fancy words, try arguing about the topic at hand or simply don't reply. So with that being said, unless you have a counter argument about the topic at hand, I won't be replying to you anymore. [[Now lets see him respond with some more ridiculous words that make no sense with the topic at hand just to have the last word. ie. typical liberal.]]
I already assumed that you had the ability to copy and paste, so no need to confirm it. Instead, try and debate the topic. We know that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. We therefore have empirical evidence of externalities (i.e. costs imposed by others) and we have an understanding of how the pro-gun lobby is motivated by forcing a non-optimal result that ignores those externalities. ...rambling about gun bans to someone that refers to optimal gun control No, the reason you post the definitions as you haven't got a coherent argument to offer. Nope. Whilst the OP refers to banning guns, the debate will- by definition- include optimal policy. Finishing with anti-intellectualism doesn't strengthen your argument. I'm not a liberal
I like the glocks, I had a model 17, 9mm, but the forest rangers seized it saying I was discharging a firearm on federal area (even though I was on city right of way not 100' from a interstate), then when I was working out of town they auctioned it off, after I paid court costs and a fine! And people wonder why I detest the FS. That glock was one of the most accurate pistols I have owned, despite I did not care for its demure caliber. I owned two colt commanders which are considered very accurate, still that Gock was more accurate! Now I have a Springfield Armory 1911 style .45ACP and a stainless steel .38spl Smith and Wesson air weight revolver for carry. the .38 The .45 Rev A The best mag in the world for a .45 a wilson combat mag~ Rev A
Your conclusion is not rational. First what is rational and irrational is subjective, a judgment call. I equate trading rights for safety as irrational, because of the irrationality of trying to do it, ha ha ~ Rev A
To attack my stance you'd have to attack individualism, given its based on an understanding of well-being based purely on individual preferences.. Never know with you lot though!
You are somewhat correct! Ha ha...I do attack your interpretation of individualism. I highly disagree that I do so using individual preferences. I disagree with your ideas because they are diametrically opposed to the ideals of our* constitution and the rights granted by the constitution. Do not fool yourself, I agree and support the idea that you should have an unrestricted right to your individualism. I do not have to agree that your ideas are valid or correct, or in some cases rational. I will say that your facts are usually valid, even if your reliance on statistical data is questionable. Additionally IMO your often unconstitutional desires, and your values go against every fiber in my being. Ie that freedom and the constitutional rights of the citizens of the USA are more important and legal than " a little safety or security". * When I say ‘ours’ I am referencing the United States of Americas constitution. Are you from the UK? Rev A
