Gee, seems the CDC was studying rates of self-defense uses of guns way back in the '90's.... but no one knew about it because they refused to publish the results... https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3124326
Or anecdotal, contrarywise, they loves them a good anecdote, when it agrees with and suits Party needs.
This is a very weak effort by Kleck. That disappoints me as I respect his research. There is no in-depth econometrics analysis and its full of "I think" type comments. Its an opinion piece.
There is no need to research and analyze various economic aspects when the matter pertains to the use of firearms for self defense. What do matters of economy have to do with the fact that the legal defensive use of a firearm is common in the united states?
He likes to use verbage and terms in order to complicate a simple concept, as it would be to deliver a study in Latin, and snicker that nobody except a chosen few will understand it.
Your proof? A blog and a broken link I am not surprised that Kleck is desperately trying to validate his findings - he has been well and truly debunked over his claimed of 2.5 million DGUs
The links worked fine for me. The only people who "debunk" Kleck are those desperate to prevent his findings from damaging their agenda.
That you have nothing to say is endearing. Of course I'd have preferred a "actually I have undertaken a literature review and found the following meta analysis useful" type comment. But we can't ask for the moon!
You continue to fib. I undertake literature review methods and therefore necessarily include studies from both sides. Some are just not as good. For example, I couldn't use some of Lott's analysis because of empirical flaw. However, its interesting that there are authors that publish results that can be used by both sides (with paper showing pro-gun outcomes and other paper supporting greater gun control). You'd know that if you had bothered to read the research.
Then by all means. Explain to everyone present, precisely what economic aspects would play any part in determining the rate of violence criminal offenses that are committed by criminal individuals. Explain how the ups and downs in the economy play any part in determining whether drug dealers and drug addicts engage in legitimate work or criminal activity, that would undermine the notion of widespread legal firearms ownership and carrying may have a discouraging effect on violent crimes being committed.
The notion of so-called "in-depth econometrics analysis" presented by yourself. Pray tell exactly what is this method of analysis that was referred to by yourself? How does it factor into anything?
Econometrics isn't economics dear chap; it was merely developed by economists. Its used across the social sciences and the sciences.
It is Robust ! Empirical evidence ! Econometric analysis ! Firearms effect v number of guns in circulation !
Econometrics is the study of economic factors, and how such relates to specific incidents. Get to explaining how these factors may affect the rate at which crimes are committed by criminal individuals.
As I said, you're wrong. Econometrics was created by economists to test (making it different to non-parametric testing). Its no longer 'economics'. Is a scientist using econometric methods necessarily referring to economics? Of course not. Be serious. You've already been told how economics tend to study criminology (e.g. Becker's deterrence theory). The likes of Kleck will support that viewpoint, but the testing of hypothesis is not specific to it.
The economy does nothing to affect the decision of criminal individuals to engage in criminals acts. These are individuals who cannot, and do not, hold legitimate means of employment. As they cannot be gainfully employed in an honest manner, the state of the economy does not affect their decision to distribute illicit narcotic substances, traffic weapons, and murder each other over disputes of territory and being disrespected.
