There are a handful of Jornals that cover this subject in the US---vairous Economic and Criminal---however, the people who contribute or review to these works are not free from bias, as many articles clearly have "an axe to grind." Crime in the US is so dramatically influenced by race and politics, that they cannot be "controlled for," without damaging the conclusions of any study. One study that attempts to explain the increase in crime over the last 50 years did a very poor job. "What do Economists Know About Crime." https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...YPeXDz&sig=AHIEtbQUEca55FnqpliHhOi-wsACj01O2A They largely ignored race, and that is racist in itself. They also looked at the arrest rate vs. incarceration rate---instead of conviction rates. Their theories were all failures. Since only "Peer Reviewed Journals" contain the knowledge and wisdom to study and understand any subject objectively [as you imagine], please give me any study that can find a perfect correlation with the increase in violent crime and homicides over the last 50 years here in the US AND anything other than liberal changes in laws and courts.
I don't care for racism. I certainly won't be legitimising it by treating it as any more than it is (i.e. it is cretinous)
The US is presently being run by "professors" and look at the state she is in professor. I'll keep my 2A tools and you can use your empirical data. May you always have the tool the situation requires.
And I suspect you are one whose intellect would force him to claim he could see the emporer's new clothes. There is another relevant education found outside ivy covered walls professor.
So let's see. You claim have a superior intellect. You hide behind biased studies that you claim uses empirical data to prove what they want to prove. You offer none of the study information. You call people names. Seems to me your own bias has gotten in the way of your own intellect. How intellectual is that?
Don't fib now. I merely note that, to argue against rational gun control, one has to adopt an anti-intellectual approach. Interestingly, that's also a basic feature of the authoritarian personality. Using econometric analysis is a must if one wants to avoid spurious conclusion. The metholodogies adopted also allow for easy testing of robustness. Lott's analysis, for example, can be demolished for the dummy variable limitation adopted. This is a fib. I'm happy to discuss any element of the studies referenced (data, empirical specification, tests for reverse causation etc). It is a shame, however, that those against rational gun control haven't actually read any primary research. Nope. I am, however, objective and able to make an honest evaluation of desperate weakness in argument. I have no bias. I'm from a gun owning background after all. My stance is purely based on the evidence. Your post was lacking in the content compartment. It was also poorly put together, lacking any resemblance of logic.
Race? How about culture? You want to pay attention to facts yet want to avoid them at the same time. You can't have it both ways. 50% of gun violence in the US is caused by 13% of the population by race which is identified strongly by culture. In your world, their should be no difference because it is the gun's fault, when culture is a much stronger determinant. Why is does the UK have low gun violence compared to the US? Culture. Why is there such a large deviation in the US on gun crime? Culture.
There are some phrases that do tend to give me pause to critically consider; A story that starts with "this ain't no bull" is one, another is the government reducing a citizen's rights because "This really is for your own good." The tool you and others of your mindset must target is the human brain, Professor. A citizen has recourse if his rights are denied. On the other hand a subject may not but both still have free will to exercise their choice...that frightens despots and those who wish to control the lawful choices of another. A strategically deployed firearm can relieve the unarmed of an advantage. England has gun control, yes? Have murders or other crimes stopped?
All developed countries have gun control. England and Wales have utilised handgun bans, given the perceived threat of further spree killings. One might note that the homicide rate in England and Wales is decidedly small compared to the US. I of course wouldn't use that statistic as it could well be spurious. Instead I would note that the handgun ban didn't create a structural break in the crime data. This is actually supportive of gun control action. We reduce the threat of spree deaths without any perceived negative spillover effect (i.e. the belief that guns are vital for deterrence) from occurring. Evidence based dear chap! Its the rational approach
Perhaps history is evidence, factual even? Any studies detailing America's rank in firearm "spree" murder victims compared with such events in other developed countries? Is crime where the criminal uses a firearm on the rise in England? Of course subjects have no legal right to defend themselves with firearms (unless granted by the powers that be) but I do wonder if history reveals whether despotic or totalitarian ruled countries/societies trusted their subjects with the right to arms? Have any regimes enjoyed or enhanced existing gun control laws to its advantage? Do any studies show that gun control treats the citizen with no criminal intent the same as the criminal? Any studies show felonious or violent crime negated by the access and use of firearms by the targeted victim? The strength of laws are realized only when honored by all parties to an event otherwise these tools of orderliness only prescribe a penalty.
Homicide certainly isn't. The real question though is "is there a structural break in the crime data?'. No such break exists, demonstrating the folly of the NRA goons when referring to England & Wales.
Gun crime has close to doubled in the UK in the last decade. Why? A growing culture of extreme gang violence, again, culture an not the gun.
Any studies detailing a crime victim's patience with studies on how well gun control laws served/protected them? Sorry didn't mean to touch a nerve with England and Wales. Did something untoward take place? NRA Goons? Strong label. What has this organization's members done to you? Professor, any studies on how violent a firearm is whilst it remains atop a table, in a glove box or in a holster? To bring about your desire you and your ilk need to target the most dangerous tool/weapon on earth...the human mind. Any studies on how to do that?
He often shows his emotional attachment to his argument by calling groups of people names. The NRA translates to the American people since it is just an organization of American people.
You're not making much sense. The probability of being a victims essentially falls with gun control. Not really. Merely a reference to the corrupting influence of a pressure group and the negative impact for misinformation. Plenty of stuff on unsafe storage. The secondary market, including the sale of stolen product, provides one explanation for the positive relationship between gun prevalence and crime rates. Plenty of psychology studies into how gun possession changes behaviour, providing another explanation into how guns impact on the lethality of crime
notice how reiver always talks about these studies, but never actually provides them? or when he does, you are required to pay for the ability to read it? it's been the same song and dance for months.
Nor does he talk about the corrupting influence of a gun control pressure groups and the negative impact for misinformation. It is apparent that he approaches this subject with predefined bias and cannot address anything other than what he wants to believe ignoring both evidence and common sense.
Why would I? I refer directly to the academic research. This makes no sense. I come from a purely objective position. Unlike you I have also undertaken appropriate literature review methods.
poppycock. you refuse to provide the resarch when challenged. once challenged, you proceed to dodge weave and insult for pages upon pages.
Another study conclusion? The cousins across the pond call it a 1A exercise. Perhaps it doesn't translate well being a cultural thing? But not homicides right? An armed citizen would give most criminal a change in attitude and intent.
Its rather common to focus purely on homicides. This is particularly the case with panel analysis as it can be difficult to ensure consistent crime definitions are adopted. Less of an empirical issue with homicide Indeed. There is evidence, for example, that gun ownership actually increases the risk of being burgled. Rather than deterrence effects dominating, the gun represents valuable loot in itself.
