How to go about bringing anti-2A folks around

Not at all. On the contrary, I have put together a well-thought-out argument using logic and facts, and your answers thus far have not been satisfactory in my opinion.

You continuously say that the we should lump together illegally-obtained guns with legally-obtained guns when it comes to calculating social cost and externalities. My contention is that this is bogus in the same way that you wouldn't lump together illegal immigrants and legal immigrants in the same category when calculating the "social cost" or "externalities" of immigration.

Then you agree that due to the market failure secondary to the sale of knives, governments should indeed implement a licensing fee to offset social costs?

The only one who is playing pretend is you. The fact of the matter is that there are no prospective studies that even attempt to address this issue (let alone come to a conclusion that favors more gun control). If you are referring to the Ludwig and Cook article as an "objective study," then you are merely demonstrating your own bias, inasmuch as I've already proven these authors as partisan hacks.

You are evading the initial question. Certainly there are negative externalities associated with the knife market, so why should we not implement licensing fees with knives (similarly to the fees that you want to implement with guns)? Don't we need this to "internalise externalities" in regards to knives as well?

Wrong. The first real contention of the Second Amendment was in 1822 with Bliss v. Commonwealth, and the courts sided with the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. The first time the Second Amendment was ever interpreted as "militia-based" was in 1842 (over a half century after the Bill of Rights was ratified) in State v. Buzzard.

On the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence supporting this theory, and the raw data actually supports the notion that weaker gun control laws (e.g. more potential gun availability) reduces violent crime/homicides.

 

You’ve overestimated, by a substantial extent, your argument. You haven’t provided any logic. You’ve merely misunderstood the basics and the importance of the market distinction between private and social costs. Tacitly you’ve admitted it by being forced to make your comments over dangerous driving, whereby- to try and respond to logic- you had to completely change the subject.

Basic error again. I’ve stated that the legal and illegal markets cannot be separated, given spillover effects that ensure negative externalities.

You again show that you do not understand externalities. Within the market context we’ve been referring to (‘we’ is perhaps a little generous on your behalf), we use externalities to refer to a form of exchange that leads to overconsumption. “Illegal immigration” isn’t about market failure; it is about international differences in income distributions. You could use it to attack some of the theorems predicted by Heckscher-Ohlin trade theory, but that’s a completely different issue.

There isn’t overconsumption of knives. It would be foolish to suggest that there is. Are you really going to offer that argument? Don’t mind me, I find how people destroy their own attempt at argument a little entertaining!

I have no need to ‘play pretend’. I have no ideological bias that hinders my objectivity. I can only refer to the evidence. You can only hide from the evidence.

You again show a lack of objectivity and a complete inability to make genuine remark over the paper involved (published in one of the most respected journals). I wouldn’t lower myself to such tactics. Kleck’s output, for example, is always treated with respect.

No, I’m merely able to refer to externality analysis with validity. There isn’t a comparison between guns and knives. We know that the evidence shows overconsumption of guns, given private preferences of course ignores the market spill-overs that impose costs on others. No such analysis exists with knives. We do not have overconsumption of knives. We simply have crimes committed by knives. That isn’t an analysis into externalities; it’s a reference to law enforcement. That you don’t see the difference only demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of externalities.

The comparison is nonsense, but I don't mind you going with it. Can you provide one published article that demonstrates an overconsumption of knives? Please remember to provide author(s), title, journal, issue and page numbers. I look forward to the read!

Please don’t make up obvious folly. It’s a chore. Gun control pre-dates the revolution and goes back to Anglo-American law. Individual states also adopted more stringent regulations in the years after the adoption of the Second Amendment

Standard attempt at misrepreresentation. That the empirical evidence is found to significantly crime crimes and suicides is but a factual statement. That raw data cannot be used to test hypothesis is but obvious. It must be used within empirical specification capable of isolating gun effects. That you’re prepared to make ridiculous claims only shows that you’ve lost the argument.

 

This is so apropos, it warrants repetition.

 

If we knew what would change our minds, we wouldn't hold the opinion we do? I'm marginally opposed to the second amendment because of the statistics. Effective gun control (which does not exist anywhere, in any jurisdiction in the US) substantially reduces homicide. That's a statistical fact. I don't really care if property crimes edge up a little, if it means less people get killed. Better to get robbed occasionally than have your kids get shot in a fit of random violence. At least if guns were actually banned, rather than "controlled" ineffectually, we could arrest criminals merely for possession, rather than more complex registration cases.

The personal protection argument and the "criminals will still have them" argument fails on fact alone--the fact is I'm less safe with everyone else having guns than I am if no one had them. The fact is that an absolute ban on gun ownership would make it easier to prosecute gun-toting criminals--because suddenly merely carrying runs the risk of getting arrested. Plus supplies would go way down. Not to mention the fact that so many guns and ammunition are produced in the US--if we really did ban guns, we would also cut production and distribution of guns and ammunition as well, making it harder and more costly for criminals to have them.

The "defense of liberty" argument is just as nonsensical, but mainly because the military would kick the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of some poorly armed militia. Especially now that we've been training and equipping them to fight asymmetrical warfare against guerilla forces.

Now, all that said, my opposition to the second amendment is very, very far down on my list of important political issues. It's ultimately not a significant issue for me. I just do not care that much. If putting up with gun-toting fanatics means I can accomplish more significant goals, I'll let them carry all they want. It's not worth burning political capital over.

More like we are of the opinion that other people being well armed is a threat to those of us who don't want to be armed to the teeth. In other words, your ownership of guns threatens my safety in a very general sense.

Correction; we recognize that military opposition to the US government would be ineffective even if we didn't like the agenda being promoted. A more effective form of opposition would be to withhold taxes--or, better yet, stop working and collect welfare. After all, it's productive citizens who pay taxes and keep the government operational.

To be honest, there's not a whole lot of opposition to weapons for hunting. Most of the opposition to the second amendment revolves around handguns and assault weapons--which serve no real purpose other than killing other people. If the only thing second amendment folks wanted were their limited-capacity rifles and long shotguns for hunting, there would be no fight over gun control. When you want to own military grade assault rifles, we get nervous.

In other words, if I could strike a deal that would allow unrestricted sale of hunting rifles if it meant a complete ban on assault weapons and handguns, I'd take that in a minute and consider it a good bargain. To be honest, I really don't even consider hunting rifles a second amendment matter, that's really just sporting equipment.

To be fair, an actual ban on civilian ownership of guns in the US would severely crash the supply of guns and ammunition. While they might be available--in the sense that they're similarly available in Europe--their incidence would be rare. In a society that bans civilian ownership of guns, carrying a gun is more a liability and cost than a benefit. The off chance of having a use for it is more than offset by the risk of having it found in your possession by law enforcement, or the cost of finding ammunition for it.

The US is a major supplier of weapons and ammunition, even to other countries where guns are banned. Our willingness to arm ourselves is a large part of the reason why other country's gun control legislation is less effective.

Let me say that the typical American experience with gun control legislation leaves the impression that it's ridiculous and trivially bypassed mainly because there are virtually no absolute bans on gun ownership in the US. Gun "control" is more difficult to enforce than an outright ban, because it raises questions of degrees, requires relatively easy methods of registration, and become subject to the political manipulations of the firearm lobby. They're basically designed not to be effective at banning ownership--it's really just more about registering owners. Which, incidentally, is not what second amendment opponents are interested in. I don't care about registration, or putting up trivial barriers. If it's not a complete ban (of at least whole categories of weapons), it's a waste of time.

Property crime is less serious than homicide by many orders of magnitude. If I have to suffer a statistically significant increase in my chance of getting robbed in order to avoid someone in my family getting killed by a gun, I'll take that trade. Property can be replaced, people can't.

There's not much significant evidence to support that position, and it's just as likely that the power-obsessed rapist will take the gun from her and use it to enforce compliance. Or rapists will just turn to date-rape drugs even more than they already do. The unintended consequences of gun ownership as a counter to rape, I suppose.

Again, most of us opposed to the second amendment do not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about your hunting equipment, if it isn't an automatic weapon with a huge magazine. We could revoke the second amendment, and most of us would be perfectly fine with still selling legitimate hunting rifles and such. Your firearms for hunting are not in danger.

 

It's always theoretically possible that we could get a repeal of the second amendment, thereby invalidating the USSC's position on the matter.

 

Please cite a source. I'd love to see it, since all of the data that I have reviewed thus far either shows no correlation between firearm availabililty and homicide, or an inverse relationship.

The number of "kids" that die secondary to a "fit of random violence" is comparable to the number that die secondary to lightning strikes (a.k.a. it's REALLY rare). Kids drink caustic chemicals, injure themselves with knives, severely burn themselves on a stove, etc. Yet, nobody is attempted to ban bleach or lye; nobody is attempting to ban knives, and nobody is attempting to ban stoves. Thankfully the USA is a country of freedoms, and we do not easily sacrifice those freedoms just because a minute few people get injured or killed.

How exactly would you know who has a gun in their home, unless you conducted illegal searches of their homes? Thus, in order to arrest these "criminals", you would need to violate their 4th Amendment rights (let alone their 2nd Amendment rights). And what would be the purpose of this, since you would effectively be creating crimminals out of many law-abiding people?

Your argument fails both in the factual/historical realm and in the logical realm.

Just like the USSR military did with the Afghans? Just like the British did with the colonizes? Just like the US armed servicies did with Vietnam? Just like the US armed servicies did with the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents? Just like ....?

This "defense of liberty" is so "nonsensical" to you, yet it was the basis for the creation of this country. I guess it wasn't so "nonsenical" to the Founding Fathers.

First, the entire US armed services is fighting an armed force of radicals measuring in the tens of thousands (currently), and they have sufferred immense causalities and loss of life. Do you think they would do better fighting of force measuring tens of millions? Second, in the unlikely scenario that the US did theoretically become a regime like Nazi Germany and unlawfully incarcerated gun owners, then I also believe that many of the armed services would join with the "rebels" gun owners. Hence, I don't think the remaining military would have a fighting chance. There is a reason why dictators, like Hitler, disarm their people first: It makes it much easier to subjugate them.

You seem to dismiss our argument like it is less valid that yours, yet it appears that you do not understand any of the statistics or historical facts regarding the efficacy of gun control. Did you even look at the facts surrounding this issue? Perhaps you should indeed take a step back and look at the facts before making a judgment (especially since you state that this issue is not that significant for you).

So you are essentially say that you are paranoid that law-abiding gun owners are a threat to you, even though the facts dictate that they are no more dangerous than a non-gun-owner. Paranoia is never a good argument to be against something, and it makes your argument extremely weak.

Target practice is a very real (and common) use of handguns that is MUCH more common than killing.

What is a "military grade assault rifle?"

What would be the purpose of this "bargain", besides making crimminals out of law-abiding productive Americans?

Yet you demonize "military grade assault rifles," which fire less powerful rounds and are, generally, less accurate at a distance. Why is that?

So the reason why England's violent crime rate went up after their ban on firearms is because we still have guns legal here in the USA??? This is truly absurd and does not follow any logical thought pattern.

I am actually very happy that you posted because you are the classic example of an anti-gun person. You have no knowledge at all on the issue, yet you think you are somehow more educated then those you are arguing against. Your paragraph above is a great exmple of this: You reference "automatic weapons," yet if you knew anything about firearm laws in this country, you would know that these weapons are largely banned (due to The Firearms Act of 1934 and other laws that followed), and only the rare few with Class III Firearms Licenses are legally able to obtain them. The cost of these automatic weapons alone will weed out many from buying them, since many cost more than a new automobile.

My advice to you, since you state that the "gun control" debate is not that significant to you, is be become educated on this subject. Otherwise, your argument is entirely based on emotion, and therefore is very weak.

 

I really don't see that happening in the next century.

 

You haven't reviewed the evidence and this statement only confirms it

Oops! England isn't a law creating entity, nor has there been a gun ban in Britain. You should be more careful with the facts!

 

Clearly I have reviewed the evidence. How else would I know that a complete literature search yields zero random prospective trials establishing a clear link between gun ownership and death/injury/crime? I have also looked at the raw data and statistics, which also shows no correlation between gun ownership/availability and violent crime/homicide, or even a possible inverse correlation between gun ownership and crime.

First, are you really going to harp on such a simple mistake (e.g. substituting "England" for "Parliament of United Kindom")? Second, by "gun ban," I refer to the 1997 Firearms Act, which banned any handgun greater than 22 caliber, essentially banning all self-defense caliber handguns (hence, my referral to this law as a "gun ban)?"

I take comfort in the fact that you can only focus on minutiae, rather than on the more substantive points of my argument.

 

The problem for you is that we know you're making it up. A terrible tactic given how easy it is to peruse the published econometric evidence.

Oops, you're really poor at the blag. Anyone with basic literature review methods will know that raw data cannot be used (except to feed the spurious relationships required for those lacking any sense of objectivity)

A failure to be accurate isn't necessarily a problem. You twinned it of course with deliberate misrepresentation. There is no gun ban. My family still owns guns and still makes use of them. They are not law breakers

And of course you will not be able to find one credible source that links the handgun ban with a structural break in violent crime rates

 

Nothing is being made up. I did a thorough review of the literature, and there is NOTHING that suggests that gun ownership or increased gun availability is directly linked to an increased risk of violent crime or death. In fact, there have been ZERO randomly prospective studies done to even address this issue. If I'm making this us, then please provide me ONE prospective study that actually examine this supposed link.

I agree, we need a randomly controlled prospective study to establish a true relationship. However, raw data can certainly be useful in dissproving allegations. For example, anti-gun groups exclaimed that, when the 1994 "Assault Weapons Bill" expired in 2004 that there would be a "bloodbath on every street corner." However, the raw data proves that crime actually continued to decrease on a national level.

Again, all handguns larger than 22 caliber were banned. This is essentially a ban of ALL self-defense-caliber handguns. Also, if you owned a handgun of a caliber larger than 22 caliber, you were required by law to relinquish it (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/5/contents Although there are special circumstances that the government will allow you to own a firearm on the "banned" list, this requires a special licensure procedure and is the exception of the rule, rather than the rule. Hence, I stand by my usage of the term "gun ban," since that is what this law effectively does by essentially banning all self-defense-caliber handguns.

You are correct, but the stats are certainly in my favor that the handgun ban did not significantly affect violent crime rates, and thefts appeared to increase after the ban http://webarchive.nationalarchives....omeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap3.pdf

 

These two sentences are incompatible. We know that you've merely perused a sub-set of material, typically non-peer reviewed and lacking any quality control. You should be referring to examples likes of Gius (2009, The effect of gun ownership rates on homicide rates: a state-level analysis, Applied Economics Letters). However, I'm happy to see you crucify your own argument. Please refer me to the latest evidence that you've read. Please remember basic referencing technique!

Raw data cannot be used to show anything but spurious relationship. Its use is restricted to background information to sell the importance of the chosen hypothesis test

Which isn't a firearm ban. You deliberately misrepresented what occurred.

There isn't a gun ban. My family owns multiple firearms. Your desperation to support your dogma has led you up the garden path.

Handgun ownership wasn't high. We wouldn't expect substantial effects on violent crime rates. It may well have impacted on spree killings, but that cannot be tested. So you would agree that its a disgrace when NRA types bogusly use British crime data to suggest that the minor handgun ban increased violent crime rates?

 

Ayuh,... So where's the link to this,..??

It's useless hype, unless you provide the resources....

as usual, you Fail....

 

Here

It is a properly conducted econometric study in a peer reviewed academic journal

You just don't understand the empirical process and basic literature review methods. That's common amongst the ideological hampered

 

Again, I reviewed the literature and there are absolutely ZERO prospective studies that examine the relationship between homicide rates and gun ownership. The Gius article that you mentioned is merely another cross sectional study: Hence, the data is weak at best. As always, you fail to provide a link to a free source of this article. And, as always, it is doubtful that legal gun ownership was distingiushed between illegal gun ownership, and it is doubtful that criminality was controlled for as well.

I never cited an article. I did do a literature search for any prospective study on the subject, and all databases utilized yield no such studies. Prove me wrong and cite ONE prospective study looking at the relationship between gun ownership (or gun availability) and violent crime.

Absolutely nonsense. All studies are mere retrospective analyses of data. Hence, looking at data with a keen (analytical) eye is certainly useful in helping establishing (or disproving) relationships. Certainly, retrospective analyses are far more valuable than cross-sectional studies. The most valuable evidence, by far, would be obtained using a randomized-controlled prospective study, hence I am trying to find one.

So all self-defense-caliber handguns are banned, and you wouldn't think "hangun ban" (or "firearm ban") is an accurate term? Your bias is showing.

Self-defense is a very important use of handguns. If you ban all self-defense-caliber handguns, then certainly this would constitute a "handgun ban," and anyone with a fair mind would agree. It would be the equivalent of banning all knives other than butter knives. Sure, you can still spread butter on toast and cut some soft food items, but many importanting cooking functions would be difficult to do with a butter knife (cutting steak, chopping onions, carving turkery). Thus, any fair person should accurately consider such regulation as a "knife ban."

The fact of the matter remains that violent crime did not decrease in a significant way while thefts did increase in a significant way. Thus, what was the point in this handgun ban?

If their contention was indeed that the 1997 Firearm Act resulted in a significant increase in violent crime, then I would indeed call that a dishonest tactic. If their contention was that thefts increased after the ban, then this would be a fact.

 

Its an analysis that, through appropriate econometric method, isolates the gun effect. It therefore certainly provides a test of the 'relationship between homicide rates and gun ownership' (and describes your innocence of the evidence)

Given I follow best practice, I adopt correct referencing. So you're admitting that you haven't read this paper (demonstrating that you fibbed earlier when you indicated that you had reviewed the literature)? That would make sense.

Basic error. The legal and illegal gun markets cannot be separated. We've seen that with that negative externalities analysis that you failed to understand.

Indeed. This is because you haven't read the evidence. I knew that, when asked "Please refer me to the latest evidence that you've read. Please remember basic referencing technique", you would dodge. No such reference exists as you haven't read anything from scholarly source.

Given the negative externality effects, the best approach would test directly any link between gun prevalence and crime rates.

We've always preferred shot guns. Handguns, here at least, were for two types. First, the deviant who has watched too much Clint. Second, those who have no physical skills and see handguns as a means to make the Olympic team.

Again, the overall impact cannot be deciphered. That reflects the empirical problems associated with analysing spree killings.

There is only dishonesty, be it deliberately the need to test for structural breaks or the use of spurious relationship within "its a fact, honest' statements

 

The Democrat party is full of Gungrabber Progressive Socialists (75% of Elected Democrats on a Local & National level are anti 2-A

 

Liberalism and socialism are incompatible. You might want to work on your political economy

 

That's hogwash....

 

This is mere repetition of your prior point, and you are again incorrect by stating that it isolates the "gun effect" or that such a study provides sufficient testing between homicide rates and gun ownership. On the contrary, such a cross sectional study is insufficient to handle these tasks, especially when it does not appear that criminality or illegally purchased guns were controlled for. As I said many times before, we need a prospective study to provide strong enough evidence to make a conclusion on the relationship between homicide (or violent crime) rates and gun ownership.

I never stated that I read the paper. Thus, the only "fibbing" is coming from you in this strawman. I stated that I read the abstract and the first page of the paper (since this was all that was available for free online), and that I am still waiting for you to post a free link to this paper. Also, from what I read, there do not appear to be sufficient controls for illegally purchased weapons or controls for criminality.

I understand the negative externalities analysis, and it is obvious that the legal and illegal gun markets are separate. Of course a very indirect link exists, just like the indirect link between birth rates and criminal rates.

No. I never cited an article, because no prospective studies exist, as I have proven with a thorough literature review. Cross-sectional analyses are worthless when trying to establish relationships (especially when dealing with such a heated political topic like gun control). With a prospective cohort, we at least can have controls and randomized samples. With your econometric cross-sectional studies, we have poorly developed methodology using vague estimations with proxies and lack of necessary controls.

The best approach would be a study that eliminates bias and offers strong evidence. Hence, a randomized controlled prospective study comparing gun owners with non-gun-owners and then following the groups forward to see if a statistically significant difference in violent crime rates exist between the groups.

This is an obvious dodge. My original contention was that an extremely important purpose of handguns is for self-defense (it would be foolish to deny this). Hence, the act of banning all handguns that fire self-defense cartridges (9mm, 40S&W, 45 cal, 357 mag, ect) would be aptly described as a gun ban, similarly to calling a ban on all knives other than butter knives a "knife ban."

You dodge here would be equivalent to saying (in the scope of a "knife ban" as describe above), "We've always preferred butter knives, and there are not that many "deviant" chefs or steak eaters," hence justifying a ban on all knives other than butter knives. Such a desperate attempt. Why can't you just admit your error here, which is obvious to everyone.

Laws and regulations are supposed to have a purpose, right? Your government wasted time and money to both pass this law and enforce it, and yet this law failed to affect violent crime significantly at all, and the rates of thefts have significantly increased. Anyone with the least bit of common sense would be outraged. You, however, have no trouble with your government squandering away your tax-money and freedoms with nothing to show for it (except for increases in theft rates).

 

Its repetition of accuracy. You might not like the econometric method, but that merely reflects your ideological bias and the inconvenience of the hypothesis testing approach. A quick perusal of the criminology literature, however, will confirm that quantitative analysis (using the multiple regression methods) is the cornerstone in testing the validity of theory and behaviour of markets.

Wrong again! You'd have to show that there is omitted variable bias. You cannot. You merely assume bias, without of course reading any of it, because the results are inconsistent with your dogma. A very basic limitation that you would have avoided if you had followed properly conducted literature review methods.

We only need hypothesis testing and checks for robustness. They're easily disclosed if you bother to read the evidence; something you know you haven't achieved.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. You haven't bothered to review the evidence, making your previous claim suggesting otherwise easily discounted. Thanks for admitting it finally!

We've already proved otherwise. You didn't appreciate the market analysis involved and the correct methodology employed by Cook and Ludwig.

Given the evidence shows otherwise you're only describing your disregard of an evidence-based approach.

You've claimed that you've reviewed the evidence. When asked to provide a recent example of the evidence that you have read you hide. This only suggests that you haven't actually read anything. I don't think you can provide one reference!

It amuses that you refer to vagueness and then use these non-statistical terms. We'd need to show statistical significance of gun variables. Do we achieve that? Yes. Do we check for issues of robustness (such as the classic accusation of reverse causation)? Yes. Your tactic lacks finesse; its based purely on hiding from the evidence. Its of course quite common. The anti-intellectual habit is rife through the NRA types.

It was merely a summary of our use of firearms. You might not like it and it may not agree with your appalling bias, but I can't revise history to suit you. I can only refer to the reality. Scary proposition for some of you fellows, but it would be disagreeable to do anything else. Handguns were never used in my neck of the woods for self-defence. They were the chosen weapon for the sport fanatic and the lunatic.

It was a hugely popular measure that, at the very worst, reduced the extent of increases in gun prevalence and therefore homicides. I have, however, found that many pro-gun types are right wing authoritarians. They might not care about democracy or reducing the ultimate coercion...

 

No, its called 'validity'. Those that believe socialism and liberalism are compatible, however, are rarely interested in such matters

 

Validity my ass,it's purely opinion.

A flawed one at that.

 

Nope. Its basic political economy.

 

Nope....opinion.