Understanding why gun control successes aren't necessarily observed

By whom and what Nation?

 

The evidence is typically US orientated. The main "more guns=less crime" stance is based on Lott. Google "Mary Rosh"!

 

Typically?

 

So it should be easy for you to prove this eh?

 

Of course. Haven't you read it?

 

Yes, it is easily tested, Harvard did, for example...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

And they simply DIDN'T reject it.

 

That isn't a review or an empirical study. You say they didn't reject it when they didn't even test it. You should be looking for work by the likes of Kleck.

 

Pointless to ask people to comment on an article that requires a subscription to read.

Your comment that differing laws between states allows guns to flow from lightly restricted areas to heavily restricted areas has been disproved repeatedly, including by the DOJ in studies of California and LA.

 

You have misrepresented what I said. I said that the heterogeneity in gun laws necessarily reduces the success of local legislation. Happy for you to show some evidence that disputes that argument.

 

So ignore crossing state lines? You mean, ignoring the reality of things? LOL

Good job Reiver.

 

Take out the Mexican drug cartels and drug related crime and we have an extremely low crime rate. How is that for a factor?

 

There are always country-specific factors which makes international study difficult. Indeed, that international study- for that very reason- tends to focus more on suicidology. I personally prefer national analysis as there are numerous issues with data compatibility. That national analysis, as illustrated by the example paper in the opening thread, finds positive effects from gun control. The analysis of course then turns to what optimal policy entails

 

Appeal to authority fallacy. Problem is, nothing is actually provable. Three types of lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

Of course studies should be done to show the obvious facts (so easily provided by crime and demographic data) that: more gangs=more crime. I find it irrational that your favored journals are devoid of such studies.

Here are some questiions you may ask yourself:

#1) If guns are clearly not the primary factor driving up crime rates---then why have so many in your field made so many studies focused so intently on guns?

#2) What purpose do these studies serve? Shouldn't the primary goal of those in Economics and related fields be to provide the public with the best studies to keep them safe and aware of the primary drivers of crime---the primary risk factors?

#3) Do you and those in your fields of study actually serve the public trust?

 

There are numerous analysis available on gang culture. If this was a gang culture sub-forum I would refer to them. This is about the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis and how gun control can lead to positive well-being effects. The analysis required is straight-forward: a regression methodology that is capable of controlling for other crime-impacting variables such that gun effects are robustly tested.

This isn't consistent with reality. Criminology is a diverse subject. You'll certainly find that there is more analysis available into more general economic factors.

Its about optimal policy making. That will not of course involve a single policy. Those arguing for an evidence-based approach to gun control do not subsequently ignore general issues such as unemployment control.

The important aspect is that objective analysis is followed. This allows for an evidence-based conclusion to be delivered. Unfortunately there will be the ideologically driven who will ignore that evidence, but providing that evidence is simple rationality.

 

Your statistical language, and evasive and deflective answers can't hide the simple fact that your views are hardly anything more than a political agenda---some Leftist policy.

My request for a study done by your fellows in Economics and Criminolgy that studies the risk of gang prevalence in the same manner your favored gun studies were done---was not provided.

However, most people aren't as dull as you imagine---at least in the US. Peer reviewed studies aren't required for the average person here to know what makes an area dangerous or not.

As an example, the rural/suburban county I live and work in has over the last ten years only maybe 1 murder a year. Whereas the urban area across the river with an approximate population of a much different ethnic composition, has had around 30 murders per year over the same period. The risk of being murdered in that city is therefore 30 times greater. Every thinking person knows this. There are as many guns in each place, with the very same gun and criminal laws, but of course that is of NO relevance to how safe one actually is. So many of the old and timid I know will not even drive through the city on the Interstate.

The anti-gun ideology of those doing your pet studies is so strong that clinical bias is an impossible hurdle.

The ends justify the means.

 

I've referred only to how objective analysis is undertaken: it necessarily refers to econometric analysis which enables the isolation of gun effects, thus ensuring statistical hypothesis testing. Given that is the most appropriate approach, it would not be sensible for me to adopt an alternative non-robust approach.

Again, there is no reason to refer to gang analysis into a sub-forum focused on gun control. All we need is for variables to capture these effects. For example, a simple urban measure can be used as a proxy.

An evidence-based approach has to be followed.

This only says that we need to use multiple variable controls. It is, for example, standard to use racial measures. Of course we have to be careful in terms of what that picks up: it can pick up, for example, the negative impact of discrimination of inequality of opportunity (and therefore the relative attractiveness of criminal activity)

 

I think the Lanza case is probably not the best example of gun control or gun crime. Lanza suffered from severe mental illness. With individuals in that population, access to firearms or any weapons should be extremely restricted.

If the conversation is how do we as a society keep firearms from the mentally ill, we have lost. We need to be identifying these individuals long before they have access to any weapon.

There are people out there that are so mentally ill you wouldn't even want to give them a plastic spork. Lanza to me was more like that. His mother have him access to the weapons and well we know how it ended.

 

Sorry, but you've confused yourself somewhat. Lanza is the author of the article and an economist from Connecticut

 

Oh looks like I misread. Sorry.

 

No problem. Easily done

 

No she did not! Please recall that he killed her, and that's how he got into the safe. Let us please keep the narrative accurate.
Now why is Reiver trying to play social engineer here? I realize that this is a public forum, where anyone can be anything they want, but there have already been 9 gazillion holes found in his premise. You're NOT going to find an alternative to the CONUS!

 

All that has been suggested is that an evidence-based approach must be adopted. That evidence shows significant effects from gun control, but with localised policy failing to fully exploit those positive effects.

 

Lanza was planning to add to the arsenal by buying her unhinged son a new pistol for Christmas — even though he hated the holidays.
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1528626#bmb=1


Really? She was planning on getting a pistol for Christmas. She enabled this monster by having weapons in the house. And yes I know she was legally allowed. The mom bought her son weapons to make him happy, never really thought what happens when you give a mentally disturbed individual access to weapons.

 

As I understood the story, the guns were stored in a safe, and they were removed for trips to a range.
This is the only case I've heard of where I would agree that the guns should have been stored off property, like the way they do it in countries where the ranges have storage arrangements.
In response to Reiver: I ask why you're trying to play social engineer because there are different aspects to violence in different cultures. In America, I think it would be much more productive to ask who is really behind the illegal drug trade, and why are we not deploying drone strikes against them?