If you knew what you were talking about or the law, you would already know that there is no real gun ownership data available. If you are going to use gun ownership as a data point, then you would need gun ownership data to compare against. It doesn't exist. As it is, if you use proxy data and crime rates for your panel analysis, it would show that gun ownership has increased along with the decrease in crime. That is what the dynamics of change that your panel data analysis would show including almost all regions you wish to compare but it would not be robust without real data so could introduce the errors depending on what proxy you use. For instance, guns in Chicago being used for crime. Who in their right mind is going to tell anyone that they own it illegally? LOL There are other kinds of comparisons that are valid, such as gun violence and race, since that is using real data reported by the police.
I do not deny that economic factors are the largest factor, in fact, my own research point in that direction.
Try not to go with the anti-intellectual cliché. Its dull. If you had bothered to peruse the literature you'd know that, despite controlling for economic variables, gun variables continue to be significant. Your position is based on invalidity, nothing more
You merely show your innocence of the literature, advertising where your foolish conclusion originates from! Do you think I somehow employ all scholarly research and all of the output is somehow kept away in my vault? Of course not. Indeed, if you were interested, you could easily find published empirical evidence on this topic. I think I'm going to have to bin you too. I just can't be bothered educating you fellows from first principles
Or you could simply follows the rules of debate and provide the evidence yourself. Give us links. Then the issue of you habitually using unverifiable sources is null. Not that difficult to understand.
I always follow best practice, using directly primary research (also providing full references and DOIs where requested). In contrast, you just say unsupportable comment and do not learn when informed of that evidence. Had enough of you!
It's hard to know what you're saying here. In the beginning, it sounds like you're saying that evidence suggests gun control reduces crime, then you go on to say that it doesn't. The evidence pretty overwhelming suggests that it doesn't. Background checks do work, they reduce crime rates in a statistically significant manner, but it's still a pretty small effect. No other gun control laws do. And higher guns per capita is correlated with reduced crime, not higher. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
This is a lie. The empirical evidence is mixed, but the majority of the evidence finds that gun control policy reduces crime. I did note of course that you failed to refer directly to that evidence
Well, to prove that false all you have to do is find one example. I can give you one. Higher crime rates after gun bans.
I refer to the primary empirical evidence(which tests the crime hypothesis). Stop wasting my time with cretinous reply
We have a simple fact: you haven't referred to the empirical evidence directly. That reflects your ignorance of the evidence. I did laugh at your use of the Daily Mail. A particularly pathetic right wing paper that feeds id'juts with nonsense
Nothing can sway you from your preconceived notions, can they? You could look up the data yourself, but that might just burst your bubble.
An idiotic response. I have no preconceived notions. I but refer to the empirical evidence. You just don't understand that evidence. I find talking to ignorance boring. Bye
Of course, anything that does not fit into your preconceived notions are idiotic. Empirical evidence shows that there is no correlation to gun control and reduced crime, yet you hold on to your belief system and ridicule anyone that does not believe as you do.
This is not a lie. Most of the results for a common google search(and by most I mean all but one of the top for "gun control reduces crime" lead to studies that show the opposite. I have found not one study that produced the opposite result without having an obviously inaccurate method. You want my evidence though, here: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Honestly, the thing I find most compelling, more so than the raw data(which just doesn't support any conclusion that gun control or less gun ownership reduces crime), more so than the studies, more so than history, is that so many scholars who support looser gun control laws started investigating the debate from the opposite point of view, while none of those who support tighter gun control started the debate on the side of looser gun control. That shows something more compelling than the data itself.
Why is it... that the same lefties who tell us strict gun control will reduce gun crime... know exactly where and how much marijuana they have at any given moment and exactly where to get more when they run out?
