Traditionally I've found it difficult to get pro-gunners to refer to the available evidence. I was wondering whether you could put that right here and refer to examples of published research which, by controlling for other factors and isolating gun effects, rejects the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. Examples gratefully received!
You might be right The number of pro gunners able to discuss things in scientific terminology is disappointingly sparse
well we know the following over 40 million magazine fed, semi auto firearms added to the USA in the last 25 years Millions upon millions people now carrying firearms legally rate of gun violence has gone way down
Why use scientific terminology to discuss a subject so basic ? Why not simply open the discussion with what are the problems and what are the proposed solutions and work from there ? It is not more complex than that, is it ?
We've had ranters say "we don't do evidence". Surely we can refer to a pro-gun position based on evidence?
How bout a CDC sponsored study that found defensive gun use 'at least as common' as offensive use? If guns are more often used to prevent crime than they are used in its commision, as the study suggests is likely, then making guns harder to get (thereby decreasing the number of people who have them) will prevent more defensive use than offensive use, statistically speaking. It will create more victims, not less. Heres the study: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
I dont know that the Kleck study didnt go through 'peer review.' Can you tell me who should review it that yet hasnt?
It is being stated by yourself that the center for disease control, when it was operating under the administration of Barack Obama, is inadequate for providing valid research data?
The problem is that you're typing with ignorance. You copy and paste and don't know the merit. That is pathetic. Would Kleck be valid? Of course. But an analysis of the literature would necessarily also refer to how Kleck's analysis is in the minority.
Why are you ignoring the more relevent half of my post? To repeat: Who should review the study that yet hasn't?
Then let us try a different route. Shut up, and actually present the study which supposedly proves just what it is about firearms, that actually leads to increases in violent crime.
I'm not interested in your ignorance of how empirical analysis is tested. "I don't know that the Kleck study didn't go through peer review" did make me laugh. Think about it while I do something more important.
You constantly repeat the same, and have yet to prove anything relevant besides verbosity. Why not summarize in a brief what it is you are trying to prove ?
I gave you a scientific study done through the CDC, which you created a whole thread asking for. If its not 'peer reviewed' enough to be valid in your thread, then give me an explanation of what WOULD be. Unless, of course, you were just hoping for silence and I ruined your fun...
Im not relying on anything. Im waiting for you to either address the scientific study I provided that found data supportive of the 'pro-gun,' or explain why that study is not relevent to the request in your OP and provide details of what WOULD make a study relevent to your OP so I can continue searching.
But you haven't provided anything of note. I want you to refer specifically to empirical analysis (e.g. Kleck). That's a simple Harvard referencing proposition...
That wasn't in your OP. Im not playing the 'constantly moving goalposts' game. This is pretty much what I expected of you... not sure why Im still dissapointed.
