Perhaps due to the fact it is one of the most heinous crimes one can commit? But survivors of home invasions and robberies may have passionate positions on self defense too. Indeed, you make a good point; that a gun in and of itself is a non-threat threat unless an intelligence is in physical control of it. That my dear professor has been my position from day one. Criminals should be the focus of these studies and not usurping the rights of law-abiding citizens by targeting an inanimate object. Perhaps an individual's right to own gold and diamonds should be controlled by government as thieves are known to value these items too?
Texas, one of the highest gun ownership states in the country. As such, one of the lowest homes invasion/burglary states in the country as well. Chicago and NY? Just the opposite.
Already informed you of the motivation behind it: consistency in data definitions such that empirical bias problems aren't generated. Don't forget that there is evidence to suggest guns are more likely to be used against family members than in their defence (e.g. Azrael and Hemenway, 2000, In the safety of your own home: results from a national survey on gun use at home, Social Science & Medicine, Vol 50, pp 285-291) Gun control has always been part of the US. Your position is based on presenting a red herring and hoping for the best! I'll set you a task. Mocan and Tekin (2006, Guns and Juvenile Crime, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol 49, pp 507-531) conclude that after "[c]ontrolling for a very large number of personal and family characteristics and exploiting the time variation in criminal activity and gun availability,...gun availability at home is positively related to the propensity to commit crime for juveniles". Why do we see this link between gun availability at home and juvenile criminal activity?
Now Reiver, did you read that study? Gun ownership has gone down as much as 50% from 93 to 96? Using the sales of things like gun magazines to measure it? The basis of this is two waves of questionnaires and a lot of assumptions on gun ownership based on other studies, along with direct data one year and proxy data the remaining years because real data was not available to come of with the notion that juvenile crime (not even stated if it is a crime using a gun) probability is 1% to 4% higher if the respondents answered they had access to a gun at home. So when a swatch of students answer on their survey that they stole something (gum from a friend? No crime data) it is more likely they will do that because they have access to a gun at home? Pretty funny study.
You haven't understood the study have you now? The paper reports gun ownership data found elsewhere. That's standard literature review method (and merely good practice). The use of proxies is also quite useful, given it allows for more disaggregated analysis and therefore the use of econometric techniques that test the robustness of any aggregated analysis. More evidence that you're typing with ignorance. The study uses questionnaire analysis into juveniles, providing a means to have a more complete specification (allowing us to dismiss problems associated with omitted variable bias) Crimes included are robberies, burglaries, thefts, and property damage. The statistically significant increase in crime is the important issue (at least for DixNickson's red herring) Next time you respond please put some effort in it. Your bluster and blag really isn't that entertaining
More BS proving you haven't even looked at the study. Statistically increasing crime? Go read it again.
More BS proving you haven't even looked at the study. Statistically increasing crime? Go read it again.
Couldn't respond could you? Been found out spouting tosh haven't you? Teach yourself what statistical significance means then get back to me with something that makes sense (although, by responding with nonsense, you're arguably still being useful; just for the wrong reasons)
Uncle Ferd says it does... ... if ya control the gun... ... an' blast a crim'nal... ... a-fore he gets the drop on ya.
I'm saying that gun ownership is found to have a statistically significant impact on juvenile behaviour, further making a mockery of the 'its just a tool' cobblers
Ayuh,.... It's already Illegal for a juvenile to own a firearm now.... Are these inner-city juveniles,..?? or country bumpkin juveniles,..?? Statistically speakin'.....
Its about gun ownership in the household. There are multiple controls included (background, parental characteristics etc), ensuring that we're isolating gun effects.
Ayuh,.... That's a Great way to skew the results, 'n deny the Crime problem, 'n blamin' it on Guns... Probably don't sort out legal, vs illegal guns, 'n the term Children means up to, What, 26 years old now,..??
You seem to be struggling with coherency. Why do you think most empirical studies, using techniques that are easily tested for robustness, derive conclusions that show your position is inconsistent with reality?
Clearly you haven't bothered to review the literature. I'll set you a task to get you going. Reference the latest empirical study in a peer reviewed academic journal that you can find! Don't dodge now
Don't turn shy now! Let's have the latest empirical study that supports the cretinous position against rational gun control...
CLEARLY with your doubletalk and obscure 'studies' you haven't proven a thing.....lest we forget,you're the one claiming criminals can read minds...
'cretinous'? geeze.. show me ANY 'gun control' that wasn't just a hysterical knee jerk reaction to an event...rational my ass besides past experience with your definition of 'empirical studies' shows you only see what you want to see
Such ignorance! Anyone who has studied the evidence would know of the multiple gun control studies that have found statistically significant positive effects. Do some reading and get back to me when you know something
