American Gun myth no 1. Guns for home/self defence

Price refers to willingness to pay and therefore demand summarises personal gain. The deadweight loss, referring to the inefficiency created through the negative externalities, is then simple the distinction between price and marginal social costs (itself easily measured using cost-benefit techniques)

 

lol......

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.....I know I'm not in the debate.

But I have to say...thank God for the 2nd amendment---a strong deterrent against any corruption of science others want to use for their agenda.

Carry on.

 

No need to apologise, just do the rational thing and adopt an evidence-based approach. At the moment you're a tacit supporter of coercion and that simply isn't jolly!

 

I would. But I'm off the gun thing and am now doing interesting research as to why one set of studies show smoking as preventing the onset of alzheimers and one set (done after the first set) show smoking as causing alzheimers. Also reading on the various nicotine treatments given to people with Alzheimers and Parkinsons--that have demonstrated highly successful results.

But sorry to divert from the topic. Providing they fit your world view we know studies are very important to you..

 

I'd cheer a genuine interest in eliminating coercion. Such a radical shift in your stance would show a spectacular diffusion of knowledge as you break the shackles of group thought. Good luck!

 

...and how do you eliminate "coercion" I own because I can and it is my Right. No one convinced me, it is the result of war and the exposure of some third party interloper who is trying to defer my ownership into their private war.
One of the primary conditions for presenting a debate is to have on specific object in mind and to state that objct clearly. The audience must be considered. You have become so convoluted with presenting one document (OCD) without stating your purpose, subject matter, continue to adress your audience with a pompous air, arrogantly dismissive about defining an actual value (keeping your objective hidden), then challenging the rest of the forum involved to figure out what it you are talking about. Jargonism and misleading statements, failing to meet the criteria demand of your responders. You failed to keep it so everyone could participate by deliberately talking over some folks heads. (Arrogance).
You cannot even agree that your plan is to reduce or remove guns from society.
You have failed in your debate for the obvious reasons. Jargonism, gibberish, arrogance, maintaining a leash on information. The earmarks of tyranny, naysay and try to embarrass your opponents, trying to shame others through jargonism. (Pompous)
You don't even know the message you are trying to spread. You cannot interpret the words you use.
99% of the members in this forum are not rocket scientists, yet you demand that we must be rocket scientists to grasp some obscure definition to some even more obscure end.
You have failed to convince me of anything. You still bleat while I still hold my guns even tighter. Have you ever considered that people like you drive even more people to buy guns? It is folks like you who encourage the number of people who think like me to go and buy more guns. You have a hidden agenda.
Gonna go buy some more caps. Talking is done. You have convinced me of the opposite of whatever you are obscuring.
You did not "win" against me, I don't wrestle with idiocy.
Your poli-speak reminds me of a politician. Hidden agenda often hidden behind a string of big important sounding words makes you look small. And like a politician, you make vague references to some sort of problem and even more vague solutions. You are talking out of two sides of your mouth.
I am done with your guessing game. You have no beginning point and no end point, therefore you have no point to make, and I remain unconvinced, quite the opposite in fact.
One study does not make an argument.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Wear your study like a bullet proof vest or wave it under a criminals nose. It'll make as much sense to him as it has with the rest of us.
And what if your study makes no difference? It assuredly has not in here...........

 

New study shows gun violence down in Virginia

http://www.nbc12.com/story/20182856/new-study-shows-gun-violence-down-in-virginia

 

You're asking for repetition. Externalities are, by definition, a coerced cost. To eliminate the welfare losses they have to be internalised through a price correction.

 

I'm happy that you have been shamed into actually referring to the evidence. However, why are you referring to secondary sources? Have you merely googled badly and copy and pasted from biased site? That won't do! Provide the reference to the study so we can evaluate it. I'd be particularly interested in the econometric methods and empirical specification used. You wouldn't know about that though, would you?

 

more obscurantism to respond to a charge of same.

 

I provided a summary of my position, which he's been informed of in detail. Clearly you have nothing to say

 

The empirical methods of your studies are outdated and rely very much methodologies no longer used by scholarly institutions.

 

Correlation does not equal causation

This is interesting too - it is all over the American press almost as if it were a press release from an advertising agency - you know the type that the pharmacy industry use to sell a product - release a "pseudo-news" story, have it picked up by news sources and sit back and watch the sales soar. A couple of blogs/newspapers have talked about "more guns less crime" which also should make people suspect it is a deliberate press release

Strangely I cannot find the primary research article in google scholar - which suggests it has not been peer reviewed (sloppy work professor!!) However John Lott - he of the infamous dancing statistics in "More Guns Less Crime" has a website with a link to the "original research" published not in an academic journal but here

http://www.timesdispatch.com/virginia-gun-regions/pdf_5e1e1b0a-35db-11e2-8f12-0019bb30f31a.html

 

And your proof for that statement is...............................

 

You haven't read any of the literature nor do you understand any of it, but thanks for at least trying to sound like you do. You put the others to shame!

 

Really? What is your position?

 

Ah, evidence is not enough, you need a "peer reviewed paper" that uses data from the Brady Campaign like Reiver does to support anything you can accept.

 

and you should be very familiar with it. You spread enough of it around

 

Bulls**t. I offered this up to you many posts back and you denied it then. Now you wish to engage it? you have provided nothing substantial. You do not impress anyone. Just ask.
or
let me ask...
Anyone here impresed with either bowerbird or Riever?

 

I don't expect to impress anyone. This topic is sullied by cultism, ensuring that objective comment is not valued. I will continue, however, to adopt a rational evidence-based approach. Every aspect of my argument is justified. In contrast, you deliberately hide from the empirical evidence and therefore continue to tacitly support coercion and peddle dishonesty peddled by pro-gun snake-oil salesmen.

 

You have no idea what prompted me to purchase my firarms 40 years ago. You can assume, but wait. take a guess..tell me why I own

 

You have no idea what prompted me to purchase my firearms.... You can only assume, but wait.......
Take a guess..tell me why I own

 

You hide behind one paper and ignore the nose in front of your face. You don't even argue your pro-gun snake-oil salesman mantra but it is about the only statement you make that makes sense and because of that, it shows you are fully biased and dishonest in debate.

 

What paper is that? You've tried this fib before and hid when asked for details!

Back to reality. An objective evidence-based approach obviously requires the utilisation of literature review methods. Unlike you I have bothered to read the empirical evidence. You have nothing but anti-intellectualism and the secondary source garbage you're told to use by the pro-gun cult

 

I don't expect to impress anyone. This topic is sullied by cultism, ensuring that objective comment is not valued. I will continue, however, to adopt a rational evidence-based approach. Every aspect of my argument is justified. In contrast, you deliberately hide from the empirical evidence and therefore continue to tacitly support coercion and peddle dishonesty peddled by anti-gun snake-oil salesmen.