Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

Don't you see the problem for Reiv? They didn't use Guns&Ammo for a source.

 

I haavent mentioned that source (one of your buddies has!). However, the paper referenced is an excellent one. Its use of proxy variable is quite valid. It tests for robustness whilst ensuring a more disaggregated approach that provides a more in-depth test of the hypothesis.

In contrast you just have opinion and what you've beentold what to say from low brow site. Getting through to you of course will be impossible. The scientific process is too alien and incompatable with the dogma.

 

Your peer-reviewed paper you presented used Guns&Ammo for a source of info, which means you used it for a source of info. So in other words, your "scientific process" used Guns&Ammo, which must be, according to you, high brow.

Evidently some gun magazine is more high brow than government figures. Go figure.

 

No that was mine but it was not the GnA I was pointing out.

 

Again you're showing no appreciation of reality. First, it was presented by your buddy (as part of his non-argument). Second, the problem with government figures is that it isn't disaggregated enough. The author finds a way around it. As is standard with the use iof proxy variable, tests of robustness are provided. You'd know this if you had took time to read the paper. However, as you've revealed, you haven't read any!

 

Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

More guns equal more murder, as you know. Since so many Americans care more for money than they care for life, they murder people sooner than lose a dollar. Since the starving probably have to take food quite often to live it probably statistically reduces 'crime' to murder them. On this basis, wouldn't it make sense to eliminate crime altogether by killing off your whole population?

 

Sure it does. Nothing like proxy data to make sure the variable is unprovable.

BTW, I am sure you think that gun owners are low brow so I am not sure that reading Guns&Ammo would be up there on their todo list. Then again, those high brow people living vicariously without guns may read the magazine for personal titillation.

Of course government numbers aren't any good, they are using real measured data instead of proxy data.

 

Yep, freedom is sometimes messy. I am sure you, as a socialist, have no use for freedom.

 

This is nonsense. Its easy to check for robustness.

This is also nonsense. The government merely provide the data. That's then used within scientific study (which confirms Duggan's results). Again you only describe that you don't know anything about the evidence!

 

Which is measured compared to proxy data which is assumed.

 

Fat lot of freedom in doing what your rich masters tell you to, having to vote for plutocrats and shooting one another out of frustration to increase the gunsmiths' profits. You'd have been better under George 111, kid - he was further away and less demanding.

 

Governments act on data. My wife works for the government and that is what they use. Be it people starving or people needing assistance (living) the numbers are all that matter. When you need to act you do not wait for a peer reviewed study.

I am against the mainstream economics taught and that you practice. Many economists are changing their views though. Service based economies, and their view that large countries with large populations, can prosper under a service model, is one issue I do have with them. Economics is a social science. It is part of a larger dynamic that includes: anthropology, archaeology, criminology, education, linguistics, political science and international relations, sociology, geography, history, law, and psychology.

Economists seem to not consider this and think they are above the others. All work together. I already presented a sociological study you ignored.

 

You evidently do not get it. It is about the liberal teachings and the fact that some of us are being infringed upon by the melting pot monster. If we (the free law abiding citizens) we would be taken over.

We have terrorists in the streets of America and they are called gangs. If the population was disarmed they would take over like warez mexico.

 

You insist on arming your gangs, man. Mexico is paying for your drug habit, as you know.

 

Not familiar with freedom at all I see.

 

Yet you are ready to believe use of a magazine as a proxy where 99 percent of readers all ready own a gun and on average own 15.4 guns and tend to be relatively white-collar and higher income individuals as a proxy for gun permits instead of actual government data on gun permits.

 

You wouldn't know freedom if it bit your donkey, kid.

 

I'm prepared to accept a robust proxy (its common practice, using it to improve on data limitations) and confirm that its results are consistent with other studies using other data sources. In comparison you're prepared to repeat dogma inconsistent with the evidence

 

No they are not. They can not secure their borders and unlike the US the citizens can not defend themselves.

Europe is a big drug user as well and looking ar this map:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8115229.stm

We see that the 375M Europeans get theirs as well. I guess that the Blacks do not matter to you though because they are not white enough.

 

Obviously: we live under capitalism and, as American colonies, are forced to obey their make-necessary-drugs-illegal nonsense, like Mexico. You said something about black people I don't understand.

 

The numbers of blacks in Africa killed relating to the European drug trade. Europeans can easily point our that Mexicans are killed and blame the US but in total more are killed getting things to market in Europe but no body notices because they are black. You Europeans are so smug and arrogant but the truth is you are no better than the US.

 

Almost everyone is 'better' than the US. because most of us don't automatically accept plutocracy and pull our forelocks quite as slavishly. I imagine that the black people dying of drugs die because there's money in it for the salesmen (that's capitalism), whereas the situation in Mexico, as you know, is caused by the 'War on Drugs' drivel. Booze was 'the quickest way out of Manchester' and drugs are the quickest way to (seem) to abolish capitalism, and are necessary to its functioning, as you know. On the whole, our masters have learned to have - left to get on with it - more sense that yours about providing tranquilisers for the dying mugs. Go play in another street, do!

 

What?

So we are talking guns here what are you talking about?

 

Drugs, as I understood it. You shoot people because you can't stand your society or admit it, most people would, if they could, take drugs to escape. It's a matter of taste.

 

This is the best explanation why the gun control crowd exists today and why most people don't really understand the beauty and responsibility of freedom.

People want to control in other people what they do not feel they can control in themselves.

As the self professed socialist you are, you would be much harder pressed to understand what freedom is or what it entails. No statist does.