Arming public reduces crime

Would that be the "holistic" article where the point is they avoid dealing with specific laws and instead play the bundling game? If not then please indicate what you're citing more specifically.

That so? I'll have to inform the rest of the scientific and engineering community that they need to leave their experiments out for a year and to try and work some extraneous independent variables in there.

Seriously though, I can appreciate that other effects could be in play, caped crusaders or a gang could have moved in or more realistically maybe a group arming up also purchased security systems, but minimizing independent variables as much as possible is good science across the board.

 

Its the article that uses econometric methods to test directly the impact of gun laws. The use of their gun law measure ensures the size of the data set is maximised, providing then a more accurate hypothesis testing.

You continue to stamp your foot and fail to make relevant critique.

A tiresome response, but expected from someone that effectively thinks there is an academic conspiracy going on.

This is drivel. The independent variables used reflects criminology. There's no minimising or maximising; there is only the constraints imposed by the available theory.

 

Your question goes to the very heart of your fears, apparently. This is a recurring trend for many others here. In other words there is a perception that there MUST be some higher purpose behind a study instead of the obvious reason------knowledge. There seems to be a palpable intensity that to acknowledge the validity of a particular study would be tantamount to legislation and thus, the slippery slope ending with the perceived confiscation of precious guns.

I certainly hope I'm wrong on this, as I know you to capable of critical thinking and logic.

 

...and I cannot think of one occasion where you pulled your nose out of a liberal journal, and joined reality.

 

Gun Ownership Skyrockets, While Violent Crime Drops…Again:

Friday, May 27, 2011

This week, the FBI estimated that the number of violent crimes decreased 5.5 percent from 2009 to 2010, including a 4.4 percent decrease in the number of murders. Because the U.S. population increased during the period, the figures imply that the total violent crime per capita rate and the murder rate decreased more than six percent and five percent, respectively. Based upon the preliminary data, it appears that violent crime fell to a 37-year low and murder fell to a 47-year low. The FBI will report final figures for 2010 later this year.

We’re repeating ourselves, but, as has been the case for quite a while, the decrease in crime coincided with an increase in the number of privately owned guns—particularly handguns and detachable magazine semi-automatic rifles. For example, Americans bought over 400,000 AR-15s in 2009, and trends in AR-15 sales over the last few years suggest a similar number for 2010.

Those who have followed the gun control issue for a few years probably have noticed that with crime declining and gun numbers rising year after year, gun control groups have all but abandoned their previously perennial claims that more guns equal more crime. Even their friends in the news media don’t believe it anymore. The Violence Policy Center and, breaking with past habit, the Brady Campaign didn’t even try to claim that the decrease in crime in 2010 was attributable to gun control.

Neither did Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed by New York City’s gun control activist mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s rare and welcomed silence is to be expected in this instance, however. New York City’s murder rate rose 15 percent despite its severe gun laws, while Bloomberg dedicated himself and lots of money to criticizing the less restrictive laws that are in place in other parts of the country.

Speaking of cities with less restrictive gun laws, El Paso had the greatest decrease in murder—58 percent— among cities of over 500,000 population in 2010. For those who are counting, El Paso’s estimated murder rate was 0.8 per 100,000 population, while New York City’s was eight times higher at 6.4. Across the border from El Paso, in Juarez, where the gun laws are more to Bloomberg’s liking, the murder rate is over 100 per 100,000.

Adding to the bad news for gun control supporters, the District of Columbia and Chicago—the handgun bans of which were repealed following the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases in 2008 and 2010—experienced decreases in murder of eight percent and six percent, respectively.

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6832

NRA-ILA Grassroots News Minute 05/27/11:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIYkRmi2TjE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIYkRmi2TjE[/ame]

 

Academic journals are liberal? Golly, could we predict that you'd use a variation of the "its a conspiracy" angle? Yep, the right wingers will eventually fall back to their anti-intellectual comfort zone

 

We all know the "studies" you tout start with a pre conceived notion, then a desperate search to find random correlations to draw erroneus causal links from ensues.

 

Ignorance of the empirical process is a standard trait amongst the right. We both know, however, that you're pretending ignorance. That just isn't cricket!

 

We both know that you are touting these particular studies becauise the conductors started with the same pre conceived notion you have.

 

Tut tut, basic fibbing again. I have no bias on this topic. I've simply objectively studied the evidence. You don't like the evidence because it disagrees with you. I find that just a little pathetic!

 

Now that is some funny garbage you posted there.

 

Never be scared of the truth me ole china! I've always been honest about my history: from a gun owning household who has simply bothered to adopt best practice in literature review methods, leading me then to change my own gun preferences

 

In the US, we must assume that an Armed and well regulated militia will reduce crime or other distrubances of the domestic tranquility of a free State.

States have a natural right to their own security and domestic tranquility, effected by a police power that is both necessary and proper to achieve that end, such as a State militia that can be called forth to execute the laws of the State or ensure the domestic tranquility of the State.

What objection can there be to "artificially" creating a culture of militia service among those of the populcace who choose to keep and bear Arms; by committing them to community militia service as an alternative form of justice.

 

Once again we see that independent thinking is a foreign concept to you, friend. You mean you're actually going to cite the NRA for an honest and unbiased view of gun control? Really? At least put SOME effort into this.

You even used their erroneous headline in your post which is as far as one would need to go really, but if you actually peruse the text of the article, they do NOT show how there is ANY increase in gun ownership. They only note how there has been a increase in gun sales. We know from recent past years that this increase in gun sales has NOT translated into an increase in gun ownership,... only an increase in personal arsenals.
Source.

The NRA knows this and yet they chose to use hyperbole and demagoguery. Hardly a valid source, friend.

 

Well we all know what you say here cannot eb trusted to be the truth, Me Ole China.

 

Everything I utilise can be checked. Objectivity provides for a straight-forward result!

 

I certainly would not agree with that statement.

To call someone untruthful without proof is both disingenuous and a waste of this forum's valuable space.

You can do better.

 

Read up on your boyfriend on the forum, the proof is all around you.

 

He's a little worried about evidence as he's recently shot himself in the foot whilst trying to use it. Give him time!

 

I have little patience for those who so freely make baseless charges and then ask YOU to support their wild charges. I'm still hoping for a higher standard of discourse from some here. Naive perhaps.

 

Absolute rubbish. You are either making this up or you had a bad dream.

Your heading is ridiculous and is proven over and over again around the world. Guns just mean more shootings, more murders.

 

Gun ownership per 100K
US: 88.8
Canada: 30.8
France 31.2

Murder rate
US: 5
Canada: 1.8
France: 1.3

 

He's thinking of Switzerland where all men serve in the militia and are issued with a firearm and expected to keep it at home. But the rest of his comments are incorrect - crime did not suddenly drop to almost nonexistent. The country has a crime rate similar to other European countries which have fewer guns per household, for example its neighbour Germany.

 

Ayuh,... But you rarely to never post any links to yer supposed proof...

 

Ayuh,.... Agreed,...

It took less than an hours readin' of the moronic postings of these 2 lovers to see the stupidity of their rantings....