History shows when studied, that Gun Control in America is rooted in bigotry and quite possibly racism. I refuse to hate. I will not come aboard any political philosophy developed by people embracing hate for another human being no matter how they dress it up.
Why? so you can dismiss my views out of hand?...sorry,you have NO studies that show the 'positive effects' of gun control,since I doubt you can define what the 'control' is. Work on it.
Anyone that actually knows the evidence would have provided a reference of a study that supports their position. That you cannot informs me that you are quite unaware of the literature. Cheers anyway. Even showing drastic innocence of the literature serves a point: you've been jolly decent to confirm the anti-intellectualism status of the gun lobby
Think! Don't fall prey to, be consumed by and perpetuate the xenophobic hatred preached under the guise of a "civil" academia exercise. For your next exercise seek out objective studies, absent a political or racist agenda, on man's right to and exercise of self defence with with current technologies and report back. Good luck son.
Sorry chum, but I'm not interested in guff. Present an empirical study that supports your position or move along like a good chap
I understand your reluctance, life can be a bit frightening outside the ivy covered walls. Seek knowledge and embrace objectivity and wisdom will be yours. To do otherwise is simple folly. Good luck.
Just more guff. Get back to me when you can meet the requirement for logical conclusion: an evidence-based approach. Given you're innocent of the research, I appreciate it may take some 'catch-up time'. Happy to wait and ignore the guff!
Feigned kindness does not adequately mask your discomfort with an empowered citizenry. I understand the status threat those who wish to control others who are not cooperating must feel. Frightening and frustrating. I'll make an allowance of time for you to come to terms with this personal revelation, yet simple reality for the rest of us. Cheers and good luck with and make good use of the sabbatical.
Just more guff. Sorry chum, I just don't find you entertaining enough. If you can't provide any empirical analysis on the topic then I'm afraid I can't be bothered with you
Really? To bad for you as I find you a clownishly amusing sort of chap...well except for the desired control of other peoples self defence options. That being disguised with a "what's best for you" mantra but truly is rooted in a xenophobic hate of us proletariat folks. Now back to your sabbatical.
I HAVE provided you a reference before,only to have you sniff at it, and smarmily comment that it wasn't a 'real' study,or somesuch....
Golly, insipidity run amok! We both know that you dodge because otherwise you'd be found out. That dodge mind you also guarantees your uselessness for the debate!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp5gAY6aIjA&feature=related This video link above shares the story of one member of the proletariat class life and death struggle, that elitist would leave defenseless save, perhaps, arming her with a slanted, subjectively politicized study. Unbelievably, even without that study she was able to save her young life and that of her infant son. But one who shall remain nameless...would he rather she was armed and defended herself with the latest study exclusively, throwing about pointed statistics and firing off hard facts? If she was able to meet and repel the invaders with a study (a very powerful study no doubt) wouldn't that be proof of the value in a very real sense of gun control studies? I think not. No one wants to see anyone end their life in this circumstance but the facts are; a man brought his adult hunting knife to a teenage girl's gun fight...maybe he believed there were no firearms available to this teenage widowed mother and preceded believing the odds were in his favor? There were two home invaders, he was larger and stronger, armed with a knife and fueled by an evil that at the least would terrorize most grieving teenage girls into victimhood. Academia meet the real world, a young woman more than the equal of her attacker because of her own personal gun control.
Some here would find it statistically implausible that she did not harm herself or her child with a dangerous firearm instead of the unfortunate home invasion artists. Ditto for the fact she did not commit suicide with it. Remember, one can ignore gun control studies generated by biased liberal academia for the purpose of demonizing guns.
Copernicus: "1. There is no one center of all the celestial circles or spheres. 2. The center of the earth is not the center of the universe, but only of gravity and of the lunar sphere. 3. All the spheres revolve about the sun as their mid-point, and therefore the sun is the center of the universe. 4. The ratio of the earth's distance from the sun to the height of the firmament (outermost celestial sphere containing the stars) is so much smaller than the ratio of the earth's radius to its distance from the sun that the distance from the earth to the sun is imperceptible in comparison with the height of the firmament. 5. Whatever motion appears in the firmament arises not from any motion of the firmament, but from the earth's motion. The earth together with its circumjacent elements performs a complete rotation on its fixed poles in a daily motion, while the firmament and highest heaven abide unchanged. 6. What appear to us as motions of the sun arise not from its motion but from the motion of the earth and our sphere, with which we revolve about the sun like any other planet. The earth has, then, more than one motion. 7. The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the earth's. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens." Someone like someone we know on this forum: 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?
Well empirical data reveals blah, blah, blah The same brilliant research people did a study and found only they can see the emperor's new clothes. The unnamed one is presently on sabbatical from this thread until he makes it back to reality. Probably won't hear from him 'til after the election. Obama for firearms salesman of the year four times running~
I rarely get to quote sense on this sub-forum. Makes a pleasant change! I don't expect an answer from the question though. That would involve an evidence-based approach that would destroy core ideological limitation
Whilst I wait for a gun lobby type to actually refer to the econometric evidence, here's a study chosen randomly: Chennareddy (2011, Crime and Brady Control Laws and a Household's crime: Pooled state level cross-section and quarterly time-series database, International Journal of Business & Public Administration, Vol. 8 Issue 1, pp. 136-148 ). And here's the summary: Increasing per capita real income and standard of living in the United States have been accompanied by increasing number of total crimes as well as all crimes per million households. This phenomenon led to increasing demand for public safety, which, in turn, encouraged the U.S. Congress to enact a crime-bill and Brady Handgun Control bill in 1994 to reduce the crimes in the country. The two laws were effective during the same period of time. In this study, a probability Logit model in binary mode, using pooled state-level aggregate cross-section and time-series quarterly database for the period 1980-2003, was estimated. This model estimates the probability of a household committing a crime explained by various explanatory variables and the two laws in existence during the same period of time. Analysis done for this study indicated that the crime-bill and Brady Handgun Control bill were effective in reducing the crimes.
whoops................ http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...gc.r_pw.&fp=581af0f994761529&biw=1280&bih=603 try not to make things up. you're embarassing yourself.
Hey! I have a "Brady" in my post too! How cool is that, or maybe just coincidental? Laws stop crimes, hmmm? And I thought they simply informed one regarding the elements, classification and potential penal options of said crime. What gun control law do you think young Brady informed the two criminals of to inspire them to discontinue committing crimes in his home? America is a land where we the people treasure our individual, personal liberty. You want to show the world collective patterns realized in a study hall. I'd enjoy sharing a real world experience by those who live it. We can enjoy a symbiotic partnership! You post then I'll post a complimentary real world experience. Tit for tat, ying for yang, politicized biased academia for factual events. How Exciting!! Well, this is my first contribution partner!! Hip, hip, Cheerio Ol' son
Tidy bit of gumshoe sleuthing Rahl. Thought the "a household committing a crime" position/statement a bit of odd grammar but let it pass without comment ('til now) considering these folks believe firearms commit crimes. I do find this young fellow's attempts amusing, plus he affords a complimentary opportunity to share the facts of those who used gun control (firmly held, constant and steady pull on the trigger, knowing what is between and beyond you and your target) as it was originally understood.
