Arming public reduces crime

You'll notice nowhere in Reiver's reply does he actually disagree with me on the "just trusting their conclusions" bit with regression.

Which is why I think you agree with me on the point, Reiver.

Perhaps selecting a very specific hypothesis. And it's effect shouldn't be ignored.

To bring our tangent back around to the topic I'd like to point out that, as I'd expect you are aware, every other field of science goes to great pains to isolate the independent variable as much as possible.

In the case of guns, this would apply to dramatic and rapid shifts in a specific location. Such incidents are popular in gun rights groups, because the results are favorable to the gun rights positions.

However to my knowledge there is a gaping hole in the academic research around such events, when they should be the central points of inquery.

While firearms are behind quite a few other factors when it comes to crime totals, they can still make a difference however. For example in reducing rape and hot burglary rates.

 

I Carry A Gun - Because A Cop Is Too Heavy.

 

If it's a concealed handgun, i hope you took the safety course and got your 4 year license.

 

In Tennessee and Florida it is a 6 year license. The safety course is mandatory.

 

There is nothing in your posts that I agree with. You've made inaccurate comments over the use of econometrics, despite (I'm assuming here you've read the literature) knowing that the approach is vital for isolating gun effects. Should we always question a specific paper's accuracy? Of course. However, that isn't specific to econometric analysis. That reflects reference to sound literature review methods. Indeed, the use of the econometric approach makes evaluation a more straight-forward proposition. Its easy to refer to robustness checks and its easy to quantify the importance of the paper's results (through, for example, the use of elasticity measures).

A very specific hypothesis? Meaningless vocab! Again, you offered not one valid critique of the available econometric methods.

All catered for in panel analysis!

 

not really.

countries where guns are freely available do not have lower murder rates than countries with strict gun laws.

in fact - often the reverse is true.

 

Perhaps you should take into account violent crimes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

I own lots of guns. One is within arms reach as type. I also have a Castle Doctrine in my state that allows me to shoot and kill any person who enters my home without permission, and I feel threatened by.

Outlawing firearms takes the guns away from law abiding citizens like myself, and places them in the hands of unsavory people.

Did you ever consider a large percentage of guns used in murder are stolen to begin with?

 

What exactly makes it concealed?

 

That certainly provides one mechanism where gun prevalence feeds violent crime. We also of course also have to factor in the secondary market.

 

I think you are talking about Switzerland.

for every person who brings up the UK as an example of the anti-self defense mindset, there will always be the polar opposite of Switzerland to show that requiring the citizens to have a firearm and be trained in its use that has less crime than even the most wonderful UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Finland is also another good example of a Nation full of guns where the populace is not killing each other everyday.

 

Yes, you could use a panel analysis if you want to get yourself some coefficient values and confidence intervals.

By focusing on a very short time period you should be able to reduce the analysis to very few independent variables. And focusing on a dramatic and sudden change in gun ownership one should be much more confident about the direction of causality.

The question I pose then, is why aren't such studies performed by academia? Why do they instead focus on slowly changing situations in regards to gun ownership such that dozens of confounding variables must be controlled for?

 

Never heard of it being done before, but as long as they don't distribute handguns and limit it to rifles/shotguns, there could be some merit to it.

 

Quantifying is imperative. Given time variant and invariant factors are catered for, your attempt at critique is dismissed.

Deliberately restricting the length of the panel makes no sense. Sounds like you're interested in data mining. Such problems are easily observed. Indeed, its perhaps one of the easiest ways for a referee to reject a paper.

Perhaps you're trying to refer to a natural experiment approach? Such approaches won't be available given the numerous variables at play. You could refer instead to structural breaks but you'll find that the results are typically uninteresting.

 

You're still not being consistent , friend. You have chastised another member for what you consider to be flaws in research that he has dutifully supplied to substantiate his own argument. This, while not even taking the effort to substantiate your own claims. Don't you think it fair to have your own conclusions scrutinized by the same standards you expect from others? Fair is fair. If your claim is that gun ownership reduces "rape and hot burglary rates", then be fair and balanced enough to support this with irrefutable evidence.

 

Whoa, there fella. Who said anything about "Outlawing firearms"? Try to stay focused please. Constructing straw men isn't necessary.

Which inevitably lnks the legal AND the illegal gun markets. Any philosophy that promotes personal rights and responsibilities while advocating less government restrictions, should then also advocate a tax on gun purchases and/or ownership that will help offset the societal costs.

 

I can't speak for rape, but burglary is certainly much more prevalent in the UK and Australia.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

 

And those same persons who bring up Swiss gun ownership rates almost always fail to note the comparatively strict (to US laws) that the Swiss live under. These advocates never seem to mention that the Swiss REQUIRE gun training, safe storage practices and ammo accountability. Do you suppose that the Swiss example makes a very good argument for stricter gun laws in this country?

Maybe we should just sweep that dirty little secret under the rug, eh?

 

No they shouldn't. Salt is a leading cause of heart disease. Should we place a special tax on it too?

We have enough taxes. Responsible behavior should be locking your firearms in a safe. Putting trigger locks on them if you can't afford a safe. Not boasting them to the neighborhood, so the kids know whose house to break into to steal them. Putting them in well concealed places that make finding them difficult. Those are the kinds of responsibilities gun owners should have. Paying a special tax to pay for the guns that are stolen and used in crime is wrong. We have court systems that allow lawsuits.

 

If you want to carry your gun around in public legally in America, you have purchase a permit. It's $100.00 in my state. The State Law Enforcement Division allows certain trainers to give courses on gun safety, use, and storage. You're even required to shoot a target with 50 bullets that have hit the target.

Why don't you include that in your comparison?

 

My point exactly. The other member made some fairly weak arguments against a particular scientific study that he simply did not like for personal reasons. On the other hand he made a vague reference to science that he could not provide and be scrutinized in a similar fashion. Now, YOU have weighed in with a contrived and cherry-picked 'Google" exercise that could not be considered by ANYONE with half a brain to be remotely scientific.

Thank you for making my argument FOR me.

 

That all depends on your state. Some states require a permit or registration for all weapons. Some states allow open carry without any permit, but require a permit to carry concealed weapons. Other states don't even require a permit to carry concealed weapons.

Every state is different, with different rules and requirements. For instance, the very liberal state of Illinois requires a special ID (which costs $10) to purchase any firearms or ammunition. They don't have any option to carry weapons concealed.

Idaho, on the other hand, has no limitation on purchasing firearms or ammunition, but do require a fairly inexpensive permit to carry concealed weapons.

 

On the contrary, the gun lobby has managed to uniquely exempt the gun industry from law suits that no other US industry enjoys. I'm surprised you did not know this.

We already tax gas (and cars, road tolls, license fees etc.), cigarettes and alcohol sales in efforts to recover societal costs these products incur on society. You act as if this would be some sort of dramatic departure from accepted governance.

You outlined specific responsible storage practices that gun owners should take. Would you prefer legislations that specifically address this to taxes?

 

Because the comparison was made to Switzerland, friend. Switzerland does not allow guns to be freely carried (except for special circumstances). They focus their militia requirements on home ownership. Therefor my comparison, of course was on OUR home ownership requirements and they do NOT include use-training as Switzerland does.

So, once again do you suppose that the Swiss example makes a very good argument for stricter gun laws in this country?

Maybe we should just sweep that dirty little secret under the rug, eh?

 

It is the natural instinct of mankind to protect that which is theirs. When such opposing forces are to large for one to protect their family or property, man forms alliance with others to strengthen mutually their defenses. In such cases governments are formed to organize a mutual protection of those within its boundaries with all agreeing to form laws that govern how and when the government can act for its populations interest. Unfortunately, history has shown us that many times the people have to protect themselves from the governments they form. By the Government removing from the people the individual and unalienable right to protect themselves and their property from outside harm as well as from harm from the Government itself, it permits the very thing that Governments were formed to uphold. People should not fear their Government. Government should fear its people.

 

Lets cut to the chase here, show us your proof that the majority of gun crime is committed using legally purchased guns. Absent that, you have no case whatsoever!