Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...

Silly? That would be using raw data when we know that there are multiple variables at play

 

Yes, many variables:

Laws that restrict gun ownership and/or use of law-abiding citizens and their ability to defend themselves against law-breaking criminals that do not follow gun laws.

Guns that can be used to protect oneself and/or deter crime.

Criminals that seek the path of least resistance - areas with the most restrictive gun laws, thereby giving them the best chance of success, with the least possibility of failure and/or bodily harm.

It's quite simple really.

 

You're adopting the "ice cream and swimming" approach, as usual. Once gun effects are isolated you your argument falls apart

 

Ayuh,... Fortunately, nothin' needs to be isolated to see through yer postings...

 

Your forgot content. Are you going, for example, to deny that- to make any evaluation- we have to control for numerous variables (such as demographic characteristics)?

 

Ah, nevermind then. The article is very interesting. And unlike what certain members believe it is not 'irrelevant' even after Heller and McDonald. In fact the article is actually aimed at looking at the standard of review as it might be if the Supreme Court found an individual right in the Second Amendment, which happened in Heller. There were some issues I found with the constitutional analysis, but overall it was a good read. If you liked his writing I would suggest another article by Winkler, "Heller’s Catch-22" 56 UCLA Law Rreview 1551 (2009).

 

Okaydokes, cheers

 

You can isolate anything you wish to get the results YOU want. The fact remains that criminals flock to areas that have the most restrictive guns laws. They know that folks will be less likely to posses a weapon to protect themselves.

 

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18

 

No you can't. The beauty of the scientific process is that everything can be checked for accuracy and robustness. Its spurious relationships that can be chosen out of convenience. There's no debate in this. You've simply allow dogma to replace reason

Back to your ice cream swimmers! You already know that the latest study looking at the impact of gun laws has found significant reductions in death rates.

 

This quote has been used ad nauseum by anti-controllers to justify a secret agenda by our President that would have a direct impact on our gun laws. More specifically, a new assault weapons ban. Unfortunately, the whole argument relies on this one quote that is not even by our President himself. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, our Constitution does NOT allow our Executive Branch to make that kind of decision. Our laws are written by the Legislative Branch and they have not shown ANY desire to do this. Actually the reverse.


I won't accuse you of "feigned" indignation about a valid and legitimate position by those whom you appose, because you probably sincerely believe this fear fallacy. Critical thinking can help you with this.

 

And those encumbered by innumeracy aren't necessarily lying either. But that's not the point is it? You would simply rather believe your ideology than reviewed science.

 

Yes, this is America.

You seem to be confused on what constitutes a "fact". Facts can be substantiated. Simple really.
So I suggest you get busy and substantiate your wild conspiracy that the current Administration is pursuing "measures to achieve their gun-free, or at least severely restricted utopia" as you proclaimed.

 

Well put...........

 

This would be called a "lie".

 

Is it now? Go ahead and show it! I'd love to see you fellows at least try and refer to the empirical evidence

 

why? you've already lost by default. you have dodged, and outright refused to provide your evidence supporting your argument, in every single thread you've participated in.

it's quite hypocritical to whine that nobody refers to the "evidence" yet you dodge and refuse to provide a shred yourself.

 

You made a statement without proof, I can dismiss it without proof. Easily.

 

I can provide the reference. I was interested in whether you had the ability to back up your claim. Last chance!

 

I doubt you can. You are also in no position to grant anyone a "chance".

 

Kwon and Baack (2005, The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, Vol 64 Issue 2, pp 533-547)

 

Ah, so easily hoisted. Like any pseudo-intellectual for that matter. Now I'm free to pick apart your "latest study". Funny how you hang your hat on such narrowly scoped studies that support your bias yet discount much better constructed studies that don't.

Anyway, let's start with this from your above referenced study.

"States with the most comprehensive gun control laws have more violent crimes (461.49 per 100,000 inhabitants) than states withlax laws (362.25 per 100,000 inhabitants)."

 

FAIL............

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2005.00378.x/pdf

another dodge, and outright refusal to provide evidence for your argument.

you lose by default.

 

What vacuous fluff! Why haven't you responded with some worthwhile, like "that isn't the latest study, we can refer to <insert study here>"? No need to answer, we both know the answer!

You forgot to provide an argument. We have reference to numerous variables that are included in the regression. You could have picked out any of the others, such as how areas with greater gun control have marginally more police officers or how a greater proportion of the population live in metropolitan areas. The point is simple: to test these gun law effects we have to control for other crime variables (more police, for example, may lead to deterrence effects; however, as described in the deterrence analysis originally proffered by Sahs, we can also expect vicious circles in crime if the perceived probability of being caught caught is low because of pressure on police and low clear-up rates). You're therefore only showing that the study has adopted a correct methodology. Thanks!

 

I'm talking about crime rates.

If you want to reduce death rates, then we should all stay at home and do nothing.