Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

There can be very specific issues (e.g. should we use unemployment or other measures of economic activity, given the possible different lags, to control for business cycle movement in time series analysis?). However, using different data sources is only problematic if we have different geographic areas used. Its possible to use mapping techniques to control for such factors

 

Ruger Super Redhawk .44, scoped, works wonders

 

Hey Reiv, on a historical note, what did England ask the citizens of the U.S. for in 1939 and why???

 

Not a good idea to refer to the nazis. Those against optimal gun control tend to also exhibit the authoritarian personality (which is also linked to fascism)

 

I have a scoped Super Redhawk in 454

 

So, authoritarians dictating what a citizen can or cannot do is not authoritarian but those that fight authoritarianism are authoritarians and exhibit signs of fascism?

That is most twisted logic.

The real authoritarians are those that think they can make the world a safer or more like their own utopian vision by controlling others. In a free society becoming less free by the day because of those that think they can legislate perfection end up instituting totalitarian democracy.

 

Get it right now. You've confirmed Godwin's law whilst failing to appreciate the impact of the authoritarian personality on gun preferences.

 

More garbage and deflection.

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies).

Wow, now you are really reaching. Where in what I wrote has anything to do with Nazis? Seems to me you really want them into the discussion for some reason.

Why?

 

Its all very simple. I refer to the evidence and you do not. Given that distinction you are forced to come out with inane side stories to fill in for the lack of content

 

So what does this have to do with Nazis and why do you want to being them into the discussion? Seems you are flaunting the inane here.

 

No you refer to what the NAZI party called evidence. A very directed study looking to prove what was wanted. There was no search for truth. There is no debate here because you study is flawed for this application.

 

Your study not you study.

 

Think of 1939, which you brought up for no apparent reason

 

I see you are confused. That was beenthere.

 

Given homogeneity there isn't a confusion!

 

O.K., Reiv, I'll answer the question so the rest of the board will know;

{{""During WWII, Churchill made a plea to American citizens for their personal guns to help arm their people for the inevitable invasion from the Nazi's.""}}

And how were these weapons treated after the War? Were they returned???

{{""After Dunkirk the people of the US were asked to loan personell weapons, of military calibers, to help the English defend themselves. After the war these "loaned" weapons were gathered together and dumped into the sea.""}}


And, Reiv, how many were sent??? Hundreds, thousands, 10's of thousands? No, 100's of thousands. True, they were not all handed out but we sent them because the Bristish had gun laws before WW2 that restricted the people from owning them and had to turn th o the U.S. citizens for their arms. And now you want to disarm Americans???

 

This really isn't interesting. It would have been more worthwhile to refer to the destroyers. Much more important

 

Sir reading your posts it would seem to me the only things you have proven. Is that you are a master of denial. As well as having a rather large vocabulary(or a well used thesaurus). This thread however places the burden of that proof on you. You it would seem has no interest in trying to prove your case. Discounting others opinions might inflate your ego. It does nothing to prove your opinion.

 

Here is some information for people who would like to form their own opinion.
Ouch improper sentence structure. Sorry rev I know that has to be painful for someone of your intellectual status.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 

Ah, you are one of those.

 

This one is much shorter but it is a pro-gun group. I'm sure certain posters here will discount.

http://www.gunowners.org/op0746.htm

 

I've referred directly to the evidence. Its that which folk find uncomfortable. In terms of the associated psychology we can refer to complementary pressures (be it a right wing dogma that encourages an anti-intellectualism or investments in a social capital that then insists on a drip feed of spurious relationship) that lead to a rejection of that evidence without appropriate rationale.

If you wanted to start reading up on the evidence I'd recommend Cook and Ludwig (2006, Aiming for evidence-based gun policy, Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, Vol. 25 Issue 3, pp 691-73) as a good starting point

 

So what may I ask Reiver will you present to prove your case. Less evasiveness an more subtance please.

 

Is there web based study of the information. Some like myself cannot invest the capitol required to purchase a book. How can one be sure the information you suggest is unbiased. In my rather limited experience there are no unbiased individuals in today's society.

 

Reiv cannot accept facts but relies on peer reviewed papers, many of which are incorrect in the long run or counter to other peer reviewed papers. Of course the only peer reviewed papers Reiv will accept are those that fit his personal bias.

Reiv also cannot admit when he makes a mistake but relies on haughty arrogance as a tactic so it is fruitless to engage him in discussion.