How to go about bringing anti-2A folks around

New Jersey?

 

Maryland

The place has a maze of laws that take significant effort to navigate successfully, further complicated by many laws not be explicity, and are instead "jury instructions".

There are forums just for Maryland gun owners, and all too often we'll have to inform some poster that something they did or are thinking of doing that seems like it ought to be fine was in fact a felony.

 

New Jersey has similar laws regarding transportation of firearms. It is illegal to transport a firearm with a loaded magazine (even if unchambered), even if you are merely going down to the range. Similarly, it is illegal to stop off at a local market for a bottle of water on the way to the range, even if you keep your gun unloaded in the trunk of the car. At the same time, the police do not have a right to search your vehicle without probable cause, so even though the law is Draconian, it is pointless at the same time.

Such laws are absurd, and turn law abiding citizens into crimminals for no apparent reason. It's amazing to me that there are people in the legislatures of both of our states who actually get paid writing such laws.

 

I'm responding to something that you said 'on this thread'. So an answer would be spiffing:

Have you got an empirical study that tests that this is linked to gun prevalence (say, something from Kleck). Raw data comparisons, as you well know, aren't up to the job. The impact on burglary, at least theoretically, are ambiguous so anything in support that you can offer would be jolly!

 

It is only through market analysis that we can understand market-wide externalities. Individual case externalities exist as well. I really don't understand why you continue to deny this.

Taking more than a day to consider new information? How dare I?

I'd like to get the point where you are comprehending my posts before I post about something new, but I'm giving up hope that this will ever happen.

My stomach literally hurts from laughing. I understand that the congestion example requires that we pay attention to market-wide conditions. I never denied that.

I did, however, challenge your claim that there were no externalities resulting from my individual automobile purchase. I joked that, by observing this fact, you were going to accuse me of not being aware of the above. I didn't seriously think you would parody yourself enough to do just that.

I'll try to simplify it for you later. But let's try this again: individual externalities and market-wide externalities both exist. Acknowledging the former does not signal ignorance of the later.

Did you get that or do I have to repeat it a few more times?

If I can wait for you to stop lying about my posts, you can wait on me to consider the information before me.

Did I deny that somewhere?

Is it unreasonable for me to want you to stop lying about my claims?

 

One thing that stans out above all is SAFETY...what sensible minded person wouldn't want that for their family?


just for thought, most Anti-2A people usually come around after some tragic event happens to them which makes them wish at that moment they had a gun..ie- Robbery, mugging, car-jacking, etc...something like that would have to happen to an anti-2A person before they come over to the side of owning guns and supporting the freedom to own one or many.

Something like an invasion by China's Red Army would do it too. or maybe Obama's Civilian Army coming door to door to force vaccinate them. or maybe even the FEMA horn sounding off nationwide

has to be a jolt of reality of some sort to work. WTC 9-11 wasn't enough. needed to be closer to home. like on their street or in their homes.

 

Well, yes, I suppose you are technically responding.

More specifically this particular response would seem to be classified as derailing.

What you are asking for is a discussion, because I very much doubt I could post something and you'd reply "well, I guess there you have it, Touché "

It would be a discussion, because you aren't about to simply accept a study, given all the limitations inherant in such natural experiments, that goes contrary to what you believe and/or wish to believe.

The question for this thread is if presenting such a study could be fruitful? Would even dozens of studies on the subject alter any of you positions an iota? Do you think they could matter to the brady campaign sorts of people? Or is it just that you enjoy debating studies (which is perfectly fine for a forum like this of course, it just isn't the topic of this thread.)

It would seem that most gun advocacy groups believe such a thing is not worth the expenditure, and they put their money into attourney fees and the like to change laws that way, as opposed to anti-gun groups like the Joyce foundation that choose to spend their millions on studies.

I am unsure if they are missing out on opportunities to demonstrate the positive externalities of firearm ownership, or if perhaps any study tied to their funding would be simply dismissed outright regardless of its merit.

Well, yes, but presumably most anti-2A folks do not have a gun anyway, and so the question posed to them is the safety of someone elses family. And they may simply not care.

Again that is true. However especially in regards to my relatives, I'd rather have them come around prior to such an event. Though just having those things happen is no guarantee. I know a handful of people who were mugged or had violent crime strick close to their home, but they didn't arm themselves. Learning and being willing to defend yourself takes effort, resources, a certain mentality, and, come to think of it, these are people in Philly and New York, I doubt they could get a CC permit if they wanted to.

 

I've already given the Coasian textbook example, used to demonstrate how- if we can avoid the market and the associated transaction costs- bargaining solutions are possible. However, they are typically quite artificial. Its obvious that here we have to refer to the market. Gun prevalence and the associated elasticity measures give the game away somewhat.

As originally remarked, the social costs from gun ownership are on a par with the car ownership examples. And, as I've demonstrated without doubt, those externalities can only be understood within the context of the market.

The rest of your post was mere repetition of your erroneous remark. Get back to me when you can muster a response to the Cook and Ludwig article. Its not War and Peace you know!

 

I was asking you to support your comment. Apparently its beyond you. Sorry, I assumed otherwise.

 

This is my point. You seem to be conflicted as to whom you're trying to appeal to. You admit that it is a minority (actually a huge minority) of Americans that want an outright gun ban, but then can't help but appeal to this extreme sect by saying in your OP: "I think it is important to explain that banning guns is wildly unlikely to be much more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals than banning drugs was. But I don't think it's going to change their position."

Now you expound on this above by saying that a "significant" number of Americans want practically the same thing. You never say how you know this.

Suppositions?

Well, don't forget, that the majority of anti-control members here are of the extreme right side of any discussion, making my opinions, and most Americans opinions for that matter, at odds with their stances. It's really not hard to find a rational person who is against removing all or most gun restrictions, or finding a rational person against the private proliferation of guns at gun shows. That doesn't automatically mean that they are for banning all guns or anything close to that.

 

The idea that guns create crime is a rather idiotic one. Crime is going to happen and does happen regardless of the presence of firearms. I reject the idea that guns have "coercive consequences". Coercion is something specific to people...and inanimate object is incapable of it.

 

The "more guns=more crime" hypothesis is supported by empirical study. You might not like that but that merely reflects your subjectivity and its inconsistency with the evidence.

The evidence points to social costs from gun preferences (which we'd expect when we appreciate how the legal market, through the secondary market, impacts on illegal provision). Your "I reject" only describes how you've allowed your ideology to hide from the evidence and therefore tacitly support coercive relationships

 

Do these empirical studies take demographics into account? Surely there is more at play when it comes to "more crime" then simply guns per capita in those area's. You must also consider a countries gun laws, in the US there is more crime in urban area's and perhaps the increased crime brings about increased gun ownership. There are many variables for which your empirical studies must account for unless you are ok with "spurious conclusions".

There are always going to be social costs...avoiding them is not the goal. Liberty is the goal.

 

Of course. You shouldn't really be asking. You should know it as, before making comment, you've bothered to review at least some of the literature.

I always refer to properly conducted hypothesis testing. It doesn't seem to be something you really care about, but its great to see you appreciating basic sense.

If social costs aren't internalised we have coercion, by definition. You may choose to ignore it but you are ultimately then attacking liberty

 

I don't suppose this study you reference is available to the common person?

There comes a point where attempting to account for social costs creates social costs in and of itself. Which is why striving to eliminate them is counter productive in most all situations...every action has externalities....you can't possibly account for them all as every action to account for them itself creates externalities.

 

Study? We're talking multiple studies. Here's an example, but there are many more.

This is drivel unless you can point, for example, to the creation of perverse incentives. We both know you can't

This is also drivel. Here we're referring to externalities that cannot be documented. We're not talking about a lovely flower bed that impresses one neighbour, but produces bile in another. We're referring to the ultimate coercion: denial of life.

 

I will check this out.

I need only to point to the endless government agencies that are created to correct externalities and social costs but create both externalities and social costs themselves.

An externality is an externality...the severity of them matters not.

 

I see no mention of demographics in this study.

 

Improve your reading skills: "we control for other changes over time in county socio-demographic characteristics that could affect both crime and gun prevalence". Took me two seconds

 

Bland comment only designed to hide from your inability to refer to any created perverse incentives

Severity doesn't matter? You're obviously no friend of liberty

 

Your feelings on the comment do not concern me...the fact that you cannot refute it is quite telling.

I am the best friend of liberty...people are free to make bad decisions with guns they just need to be prepared to pay the price of those choices. But when it comes to the externalities created by having things banned or taken away...it becomes much more difficult to hold the regulator accountable for the externalities created by that decision. The externality created by gun bans - the inability for self defense - is pretty severe as well....but I am not concerned with severity.....simply forget about limiting externalities and focus more upon freedom...even freedom to make poor choices.

 

Refute? You haven't referred to any actual perverse incentives relevant to the thread. Its a non-issue unless you can provide something. Can you?

Your willingness to ignore significant externalities suggests otherwise

I haven't referred to bans. You're trying the standard attempt to hide from rational policy. Its all a little predictable!

 

"Rational" is entirely subjective....and thus is not the goal.

 

In terms of methodological individualism (where we refer to internalisation of externalities), its quite objective. You might not like it, but that only reflects an ideology alien to the delivery of liberty

 

As in the other thread I will remind you that the Cost/Benefits of gun ownership are different for everyone and thus you cannot determine a "societal norm" to determine your objective "rational" controls.