Understanding why gun control successes aren't necessarily observed

You know what they say about assuming something don't you? LOL That is something any paper you have posted does.

 

Lott was the one assuming, that or deliberately misrepresenting. Drop the silly assumption and the results are destroyed.

 

Sorry, but what you post is full of holes and only backed up by your agenda.

 

You made an error. The assumptions are from Lott. Thanks for the effort though

 

LOL, tell yourself what you want, you are only pushing your agenda.

 

I can just state the obvious. You made an error.

 

You're failing to deal with the obvious! Here we have (yet) another subject of the British crown, still trying to impose the same old agenda on American Liberties. You need to get it through your head that this is simply NOT open to discussion!

 

Impose? Suggesting the adoption of an evidence-based approach is just supporting rationality. You can of course demand irrationality. Its your prerogative

 

You're a funny guy. You think that you can make up any word combination that pops into your head, and present that as a convincing "argument", when all the while, you have zero business telling me how you intend to infringe my rights. What part of "not open to discussion" are you missing?

 

Note that you didn't actually respond to my comment. Can you deny that an evidence-based approach is rational? Yah or nay? Because that is all I've referred to

 

I DID respond to every consonant you have thus far posted. MY rights are not open as a subject of your discussion. You should move your attention to something that is likely to receive more welcome, like a "Jewish solution", or putting all of the blacks on rocket ships to Mars, or making it a law that we can only have vanilla ice cream. When a subject is NOT open to discussion, the obvious answer to anything you have to suggest in the matter is clearly NO.

 

Your replies are random and unfortunately I don't find them entertaining. If you can refer to evidence-based gun control that would be spiffing

 

I'm not here to entertain you. You are not invited to entertain any thought of infringing my rights. Don't you have a constructive hobby of some kind?

 

Clearly you just want to spam the thread. Be my guest. However, I won't be bothering to reply. Have a good one!

 

"Spam the thread"????
I've already covered that. You think that whatever pops into your head is valid. You should go back to studying the growth patterns of the moss in the cracks in the wall in the basement, where you keep your PC. Write messages only to yourself, if you expect to be taken seriously by anyone.

 

The "more guns = more crime" hypothesis is certainly questionable. The number of guns in private hands has increased dramatically over the last 40 years while the number of homicides with guns has dropped significantly. Of course there have been other measures and social changes that could be or are responsible for the lower firearms homicide rates but trying to make a statement like "more guns = more crimes" is just simple-minded. The issue is far more complex than that.

The issue isn't the "number of guns" but instead "who has the guns" because firearms ownership alone does not imply criminal intent.

PS Something worthy of noting is that while the number of firearms has increased the number of people owning firearms (as a percentage of the population) hasn't really increased significantly. For the most part the number of firearms per firearms owner has increased but remember that a person can only realistically use one firearm at a time. It's the "person" that represents the potential threat of firearms violence and not the firearm or the number of firearms they possess.

 

It can't be rejected. Given the amount of analysis into it, that is revealing in itself.

British violent crime is significantly down. There are numerous factors that impact on crime rates. To use raw data is alien to criminology approach.

Nonsense! Its not a statement, its a hypothesis. Once you isolate gun effects 'more guns-=more crime' is shown to be supported through statistically significant elasticity measures.

% households owning firearms will be important for specific analysis: e.g. analysis into behavioural effects, plus impact on family (such as the analysis into child crime effects). Total gun prevalence, however, will be more important for general analysis (given its total availability which will feed the secondary market)

 

The "more guns = more gun related crimes" doesn't hold up because it doesn't explain the fact that while the number of firearms have increased substantially in the US the number of firearms related homicides has dropped dramatically.

As of 2009 there were an estimated 310 million firearms in the hands of private citizens in the United States but there were only 11,000 homicides committed with firearms. That establishes a homicide death rate of 0.00035%/yr/firearm which reflects virtually no problem at all. It's only when homicides based upon population are accounted for does the number of homicides with firearms become relevant.

I've omitted suicide rates as those relate to mental health issues and not firearms. We can also note that firearm violence is generally associated with highly oppressed economic urban environments that is social in nature. The social/economic/mental health issues in the United States are far more evident and significant when we address firearms violence than the number of firearms in the United States.

This is not to imply that the number of firearms in society is completely irrelevant but instead to point out that there are far more significant factors to be considered. For example preventing criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms is far more important than the number of firearms owned by private citizens.

 

You're just repeating the spurious conclusion error. Violent crime will increase or fall due to multiple factors. The 'more guns=more crime' is a hypothesis tested by isolating gun effects.