LMAO That quote is hilarious. I can just picture some whiny little limpwristed liberal on the verge of tears as he says "The gun lobby won't stop" like he's telling on someone.
Ayuh,... A threat, that can't be found,... As crime, in general drops, 'n gun crime, in particular, drops even faster...
Why do you make these claims when you know that you don't use the available evidence? We can forgive the NRA- an evidence based approach would be their enemy- but individuals really should do better!
Ayuh,... 'n Why do you continue to tryin' drag all these threads off topic with yer jibber jabber,..?? I stated My Opinion,.... Why don't You try that sometime... On topic of course...
Again,... yer tryin' to drag this OFF TOPIC.... Again,... Do YOU actually have an OPINION,..?? Or are you going to continue parrotin' the Progressive's talking points,..??
Nope. I've responded to your comment and asked you to support it with evidence. You've of course presented none. So we can conclude that you've given unsupported opinion...
<<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>> I've referred to the need for evidence-based policy making that considers, in particular, coercive costs. Why do you think the idea of evidence is so disagreeable to the pro-gun brigade?
Ayuh,... So yer Opinion is about how an opinion is reached, 'n you have NO Opinion on the topic of this thread is what yer sayin'.... Ok,... I got ya now,.........
<<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>> Why do you think the idea of evidence is so disagreeable to the pro-gun brigade? I'll ignore any dodge or directionless noise of course
I believe the following really represents the problem. He doesn't "like the idea" but expresses no foundation for disliking it. Think of these simple facts. All individuals that have concealed weapons permits voluntarily subject themselves to a law enforcement background checks. After 9/11 the US government embarked on a very expensive path to provide for security on commercial airlines while there were millions of Americans that has voluntarily submitted themselves to these background checks and many of those were former members of the US military. Millions of American that had these concealed weapons permits would have paid to take any training course specific to the use of a firearm on an airliner to address a terrorist threat and would have carried firearms for that purpose whenever they flew at their own expense. In spite of fears to the contrary a person with a handgun cannot shoot down a commercial airliner they're on. We, the American People, could have and would have provided all of the security necessary for the protection against terrorist attacks aboard commercial airliners without the US government spending a dime for that protection.
If you do the research yourself instead of counting on the NRA, you will find this to be simply not true. Guns have no effect on crime. Poverty does.
Poverty has a huge impact on crime as well as prohibition laws. Much of the violent crimes relates to prohibition laws. We saw that in the 1920's and 1930's related to alcohol prohibition and since then related to drug prohibition. Often the two, povery and prohibition, go hand-in-hand because the poor are more willing to break the laws to make a buck especially if their "crime" is a victimless crime such as drug sales.
That isn't supported by the evidence. Whilst we can dismiss specific claims (e.g. Grambsch [2008, Regression to the Mean, Murder Rates, and Shall-Issue Laws, American Statistician, Vol. 62, pp 289-295] rejects shall-issue laws have beneficial effects in reducing murder rates), the majority of research cannot reject the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis (e.g. Gius [2009, The effect of gun ownership rates on homicide rates: a state-level analysis, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 16, pp 1687-1690])
Interestingly enough, when I bought my original Mississippi Concealed Carry license, they didn't mention a thing about the "more guns = more crime" hypothesis. They told me about a dozen places I couldn't carry my pistol concealed - schools, colleges, bars, churches, police stations, and a few others - but they never mentioned anything about "coercive losses". They merely took my money, ran me through an FBI background check, took my picture, and gave me a license. Strange how that works...
I've made a distinction between concealed carry (which tends to find no effects, except in very specific analysis such as negative effects for workplace safety) and more general analysis into gun effects. All supported by evidence of course