States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

I believe it would be hard to argue that Sarah McKinley should be denied the Right of Self Defense by owning firearms that allowed her to defend herself and her baby when two men broke into her home. I challenge anyone to argue that she should have been denied gun ownership so that she could have been raped and murdered. Those firearms provided her with the only logical means of self defense.

The "best practice" is unquestionably to allow law abiding people the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guarenteed by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

 

Who said otherwise? The important point is that we cannot ignore coercion created through our personal preferences. That wouldn't be consistent with the celebration of freedom.

Its obvious that, to understand the coercive effects, we need to understand the empirical literature derived from criminology. Ignoring that literature is certainly tacit support for coercion

 

The studies are not the issue, it is that you are not actually posting the studies.

You are simply copieing and pasting and we have no means of determining whether or not it is true.

 

It would be wonderful if we could live in a world without coercion but that only exists in the town of Utopia which really is located somewhere in FantasyLand.

The truth is that if guns we'ren't being use for coercion then knifes would take their place and if we got rid of knives then sticks and stones would be used. It really isn't the object that creates the coercion but instead the individual that creates the coercion and those individuals will do it regardless of any objects that might be available for use.

I always find it both sad and humorous when I go through TSA at the airport because they'll confiscate a 2" pocket knife but allow a person onboard with an 8" ballpoint pen which is actually far more lethal. The perceptions of threats are often quite different than the actual threat itself.

 

I haven't referred to utopia so that's another red herring. I've referred to an evidence-based approach which, due to rationality, is motivated by reacting to coercive relations. In contrast, you've preferred tabloidism and- except for the Lott and Mustard error- ignored that evidence.

Another fallacy. You'd have to assume that guns have perfect substitutes. There are no studies that support that proposition. Not one

 

Breaking copyright? You want me to break the law in order to show that crime increases? An amusing idea.

No, I am adopting best practice and using evidence to support every aspect of my argument. I'm also using appropriate literature review methods, as shown by my use of empirical evidence to critique (in fact destroy) the evidence presented by Shiva

 

Unless you can provide the evidence that you claim your argument is based on , your argument means very little.

 

Adopting best practice always means a lot (and it would be irrational to do anything else). The anti-intellectuals may not understand that, but to advertise that anti-intellectualism has value in itself!

 

I do not disagree with your statement. However unless you can provide the supposed evidence, it has little or no value. I too can cite X and make any claim I want.

 

Is this a denial that coercion originates with the individual and not the object?

Of course there doesn't need to be a perfect substitute for coercion to exist. This would imply that coercion did not exist prior to the invention of firearms and that is blatantly false.

Of course there is a near-perfect substitution for firearms.... crossbows. They don't generally have the range or the rate of fire of modern firearms but they have a distinct advantage in that they are almost completely silent. Crossbows are still used in combat today often by snipers as well as by some police forces and are used by hunters for wild game. Today's crossbow designs are very powerful, highly accurate and definately deadly. So they're not a "perfect" substitute but they're a very, very good substitute for firearms.

 

Go ahead and try. I'll track down the source and, if there's evidence of deliberate misrepresentation, I'll give you a tut! That's the beauty of always following literature review methods. It becomes very easy

 

Its acceptance of the evidence. Guns do not have perfect substitutes. Gun control is found to significantly reduce crime. The idea that you simply get a spillover into other forms of crime (with other weapons) is make-believe. Again, the evidence is all against you

 

Yet you use sources that no one else has access to.

Very interesting.

 

We're very concerned with copyright laws as Political Forum could be held liable which is why we require links to articles and generally prohibit complete copy and pasting of articles. For sources where an internet link cannot be found short quotations from a document can be used so long as appropriate credit is given to the author and source without breaking the copyright laws.

I felt that required clarification.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Does coercion originate with the individual or does it orginate with an object?

That is a simple question.

 

No clarification required. I copy and paste short quotations where appropriate (as someone would when reviewing evidence),

 

Behaviour changes with the object. You can't divorce the two as there aren't perfect substitutes

 

No, I use peer reviewed research. Best practice, as anyone with but a snip of literature review sense will confirm! Unlike others I am not restricted to secondary sources of dubious value. I can trace all aspects of my argument to the best scholarly sources

 

I don't believe this would be supported by psychological analysis but would admit that the object can make a difference upon whether a person would act based upon their desire to impose coercion upon others. The desire itself originates with the individual whether they act upon it or not.

Law abiding citizens that have no intent of forcing others to do something (i.e. using coercive force) are not going to be influenced by whether they have a firearm or not.

It was funny to watch the squirming when the fact was presented that we have more firearms in the US today than ten years ago while violent crime has gone down. The "logic" given what that a many factors contribute to violent crime (coercion) and, of course, primary amoung those factors is the intent of the individual. The object (firearms) has little to do with whether a person is going to exert coercion on another person (commit a violent crime against them) or not and this is reflected by the fact that while firearm ownership has increased violent crimes have gone down. Obviously the "intent of the individual" outweighs the possession of firearms when it comes to violent crimes.

If that were not the case then the arguments that "firearms increase crime" would have prevailed and we'd have more violent crime today than in the past when there were far fewer guns. It's the individual that commits the crime and not the firearm.

 

Why haven't you presented some evidence to support that opinion? The evidence showing that, ceteris paribus, gun possessors are more likely to die suggests that behaviour does change

There's no binary here. No white hats versus black hats. We see, for example, higher chances of juvenile crime amongst gun owning households.

Spurious conclusion isn't entertaining. That there are multiple factors impacting on crime is darn obvious. You'd have to assume all of those factors are constant. That would be strikingly silly. Fortunately empirical analysis is able to control for these factors and isolate gun effects. That evidence doesn't agree with your 'opinion'

The evidence says you are wrong, indicating behavioural changes that increase crime rates. You're simply ignoring the evidence because it doesn't agree with your opinion. That won't be an effective strategy

More individuals with guns=more crime. The multiple studies that I have referenced have one common ingredient: they show that you are ignoring coercion created through gun preferences and gun possession

 

Of course. But you can't share it.

Suspicious.

 

Perhaps its a conspiracy? Perhaps I actually own all of the academic journals and I write the articles myself?

Nope! The reality is mundane: I'm trained in literature review methods and I know how to both defend or attack an argument. You fellows can do the same you know? One doesn't have to be told what to think. One doesn't have to be reliant on secondary sources providing skewed 'analysis'

 

You are a secondary source.

Perhaps you do not see the irony.

 

I don't want to manipulate you or change your opinion (I only get involved in very selective direct action). I just find using the truth entertaining (as I've already remarked by noting the anti-intellectualism adverts)

 

Ayuh,... I do,... Doubly so...




I think I'm about to give a rep point to a Liberal,....

That is a Miracle....