No, I just know the basics and the appropriateness of adopting objective literature review methods. Anyone could do it, but the gun cronies just don't like the conclusions! I didn't say you had so why the question? Perhaps you want to deny that the pro-gunners on here are reliant on poor secondary sources? Go ahead and try (please make sure you message all of them so that they behave appropriately and radically change their behaviour!) Complete tosh! I merely refer to published peer reviewed scientific evidence. That obviously includes all sides (e.g. Kleck versus Cook/Ludwig). Its just factual to note that the majority of the evidence effectively laughs at your position
You will find studies that try to prove that more guns means more violence since there is a very well funded effort to do such a thing. The Joyce Foundation is behind many of the gun control efforts. The real goal of gun control is gun registration or confiscation which registration leads to. Ask any Aussie. Gun registration has failed miserably in Canada but that does not stop them from trying. In the US, if federal registration were tried, there would be many catches of guns buried across the nation. If that were to happen, I personally would lose all my guns in a boating accident. Here you go. Something for you to read with lots of references to previous studies. Do Guns Cause Crime? http://hnn.us/articles/871.html The theory that more guns men more violence flies counter to the facts in the US where gun ownership has increased and most States have passed Carry laws and violent crime has decreased over the last decade until just recently which can be attributed to the economy since past increased gun ownership did not correspond to an increase in violence but in a drop in violence. Something else: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
You might want to get a better understanding of facts......fact: Japan has serious gun control...Fact:Japan's suicide rate is climbing,/fact: gun control has nothing to do with the suicide rate
No, 'fact: more than one factor impacts on suicide rates; fact: you're ignoring the multiple variables to make unsupportable claim"
Ayuh,... Fact; You refuse to accept studies Better than yer's... That are actually Provable with Facts, rather than Spin...
That isn't either an empirical study or a review. Where, for example, is the reference to papers like Duggan? You'd know this if you had done your research!
As I said, yer Agenda driven studies can't be proven in the Real world, there for, represents Theory, not reality....
As I said, you've chosen a very poor source (check the site and you'll find its been used multiple times by people who don't understand the evidence; its obviously been spoon-fed via a pro-gunner site). Is it an empirical study? No. It just provides some very simplistic data and fails to undertake any hypothesis testing. Is it a review article on a par with a meta-analysis? No. It excludes the majority of the econometric research, probably because the authors don't understand them
Ahhhh,no,it seems YOU are......and you deny Japan has gun control?...and you deny their suicide rate is rising?
I refer to the obvious: there are multiple variables impacting on suicide and, without controlling for those variables, there is nothing we can deduce over gun control effects. This is all obvious so I don't understand why you find it so difficult to comprehend
I find it hard to understand why you can't admit being wrong. We're NOT talking about 'multiple variables' impacting the suicide rate, we are specifically mentioning gun control and it's so-called reduction in suicide rates...I've shown it doesn't reduce suicide rates, and you keep spinning..
I'd love to be wrong. It would be much easier if guns didn't have these effects. The evidence shows otherwise. I am as I'm talking with 'sense'. Its not possible to make any comment over the effects of gun control without controlling for these variables. You don't have ceteris paribus and therefore you have no means to test gun hypothesis. Catch up now! You've been told this numerous times and the logic cannot be questioned
We've already shown that's not the case. You seem to think ignoring the evidence will work wonders. Each to their own I suppose. I personally find that quite appalling
"asinine" Can be subjective, friend. The fact that you are now attempting to move the goalposts tells me you are aware that your original comment was perhaps "asinine" itself. You had called it "nonsense", the fact that guns do not have perfect substitutes. Your evidence for this was citing a "30 story building", saying "THAT is a perfect substitute". The fact that a 30 story building is NOT mobile or portable destroys your claim.
Pro Death for the unborn but anti gun. Do you think that fetuses are armed and dangerous when they emerge and that's why you gotta go in and gettem?
Apparently, your opinions as to gun control are seated more in irrational fears than in practical knowledge. Your observation not correct. This article does not mention suicide even once. I fail to see how this could be considered any sort of contrary evidence to Reiver's. What struck me about this review was the authors insistence on using a flawed model to study suicide effects. They persistently and exclusively looked at national comparisons without controlling for cultural differences. There are better ways to look at this phenomena and Reiver has tried to enlighten you as to this. I suspect that your illusions as to what motivates those of us who would like to see stricter gun laws, has clouded your ability to be objective as to this.