As predicted Obama politicizes tragedy with calls for gun control

[ChristianCoffee]

I've been to the range 8 times since I left this debate.

I am very blessed: I have a home made range in my back yard: pistol, rifle and shotgun. It was great for the Lord to give me enough acreage to do the things I so enjoy doing here on earth.

[NHL Fever]

Opinions?
These are assessments by the top authorities on the subject at hand. Over 60 years of combined experience in the field without considering Dr. Centerwall.

Who are your experts?

They are still their opinions. What matters is their data. You could identify the data points you want to talk about.

Sorry, generally, soldiers don't murder either. Nor civilians that own guns, generally. Policemen, normally, even when killing a criminal, are not committing murder.

But criminals with guns do murder people, more easily and frequently than those without. Recall the relatively unarmed citizens of Canada get killed far less often, although supposedly the outlaws are supposed to have all the guns. Who knew?

Yes, I'm sure the police just don't investigate at all in the U.S.

If this has anything to do with the quote of mine you are responding to, I can't tell.

No, actually, when you kill serial killers and hitmen, you stop what surely is a continueing murder spree.

We're not talking about serial killers or hitmen though. We're talking about the other 99% of murders.

Sorry, again, when some criminals are known to have committed over 300 crimes a year, killing one lowers the crime rate.

This also has nothing to do with the point. You have no way of knowing, in a given circumstance, whether a given intervention would have changed an outcome. Assuming so, is the opposite of scientific.

But when you add the "wounded, scared away, apprehended", etc., Dr. Kleck says that the number of gun uses by civilians is, in some years, four times higher than criminal use.

You are struggling to understand a significant point here. I'm not sure how to explain this so you will get it. Basically you don't understand how just asking a bunch of people about defensive gun use is not reliable information. Because people can see cause and effect in any way they want, and report it the way they see it. What is useful, is changes in gun laws, and then observations of homicide rates. For example it doesn't matter if defensive uses are 1 or 1 million. What matters is, does the current policy actually reduce homocides?

Who are your experts?

I don't have experts. I use data, it doesn't matter to me who the people are if the study is good. The studies I refer to have been linked.

If you were to read more about it you would find that more lethal firearms, usually cost more than SNS's and, also, that there is no consistent evidence to link guns to murder rates in all 25 of the relevant studies, going back to 1932.

All those are claims you would have to back up. You believe that's what those studies prove, but you don't know. A more expensive gun may be more lethal, but that doens't mean its what criminals use for crimes more often. Those ideas are not necessarily linked. When TIME did an article on BAFT (linked earlier) trace requests by police regarding guns recovered in crimes, cheap concealable guns were disproportionately cited.

It doesn't really matter, because even when they compensate for circumstantial factors correctly the relationship is insignificant or small.

But they didn't compensate for circumstantial factors. That's exactly what the study admits it did not do, and why its a problem.

There isn't one that I could find, hence the directions. Pro-gun webpage referencing this study? Where is that?

Whichever one has convinced you that there are all these great studies exist that make the points you hope they make.

Still, many librarys are not allowed to carry such blasphemous books as "Point Blank", "Armed", "Armed And Considered Dangerous", "Under The Gun: Weapons, Crime And Violence in America" and "More Guns, Less Crime.

Which libraries are those? You said 'many' so I'm expecting a big list. Names and places.

The criminologists have done all the work for me, don't you see?

No I don't. But the problem is it appears you don't either. If you know the work, then specifically cite it.

As well as the police in all of the news reports, or, anecdotes, as you refer to them, for, at least in America, the police investigate all shootings and, generally clear a self-defense shooting before it gets printed in a newspaper.

Self defense shootings are not the same thing as defensive gun uses. I'd like to know which one you are talking about.

Yeah, unless it's the truth. That's the real problem with your argument, both sides of the cell door agree that guns are not the problem.

You have no way to knowing this is the truth though. It's not the truth because you agree with it. You don't work in sciences or any field involving scientific inquiry, do you?

Who agrees with you, again? What were their qualifications?

See cited studies.

Golly, in all the lowering of the crime rates, it's not evident that all this CCW activity failed to increase the murder rate or violent crime rate?

Seems you're off topic here. What are you talking about?

Probably not.

What you should be getting is that your solution has been tried without good results.

That guns don't cause murder, or suicide.

You know, the obvious things that research has been telling us for the last 15 years.

You haven't in any way show that the research is telling us that. Somebody's opinion column about the what the research shows is not the same as actually looking at it.

(From Don Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser's "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE")

... there is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States; (2) U.S. cities;
(3) counties within Illinois; (4) country-sized areas similar to England; (U.S. states); (5)
regions of the United States; (6) nations; or (7) population subgroups ...

Not all studies are capable, true, but even the best studies available did not show a relationship that was significant. Your much-touted (but never proven) hypothesis is a fallacy that lost most of it's following in the 1990's.

I haven't touted a hypothesis. I've provided the studies that support my point.

Sorry, the evidence was presented by the researchers to the legislators in each state and was acted on, correctly, I must add. If it was only "love" then all the states would have had CCW in the 1950's.

Then surely you can prove this.

Yeah, and if you had a library that had a decent selection you could find those other books about the best studies ever attempted. Since that isn't going to happen, I thought the Amazon reference was most appropriate. The evidence is almost appallingly on my side.

You wouldn't know since you haven't read it. Virtually any study done in the last 20 years is available online. Make and effort, find the one you like, and we can talk about it. So far you've only done so with the Koper study.

Unless you would like to summarize all of the parts in those studies that support your side?

I did so, also providing you with the study link when making he corresponding point.

Those books are, again, "Point Blank: Crime And Violenc In America", and "Armed: New Perspectives On Gun Control" both by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (2001)

"Under The Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence In America" (1983) by Kathleen Daly, Peter H. Rossi, and James D. Wright is a book about a study that showed 2.8 million uses of weapons to fend off criminals.

Also, "Armed And Considered Dangerous" by James Wright and Peter Rossi.

"More Guns, Less Crime" By John Lott (1997) is the largest study ever done on the subject and is available on line, along with some other studies that support the same view, at: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html

If those sources have the data you want, identify it. That link takes me to a page full of links. Identify the data you are interested in. I can't read your mind and figure out which points you believe exist there, and then respond to them.

To me, it is much more important to know that people like Kleck, Wright, Lott, Mauser, Mustard, Daly, Rossi, Wolfgang, Toch, Sheley, and Gertz are, now, firmly behind the pro-gun position.

I'm sure that's important to you, but it's unhelpful to the debate because there is no real info in a list of people.

By the way, these same researchers are, almost solely, responsible for CCW Laws in the U.S. today.

I'm sure you can prove that then.

Yeah, unless he's telling the truth.

Besides having less post-event trauma, the armed person, if he has killed his opponent, has insured that no one else will be attacked by the same man.

Which has nothing to do with whehter CCW laws overall make a soceity safer or not.

I'll check that out. I can't wait to see if they mention the 43% increase in violent crime that accompanied that ban.

This 43% comes from where?




I have an idea. We could look at individual studies and discuss them instead of going on forever. Hey it might be a good chance for you to review some of the info that the talking points you believe are based on. We could start with the Koper study also we've talked about it already. Or we could look at the study I linked at the end of my last post. As a physician I review medical lit all the time, and it's the same process. The Koper study is actually a great example of how to identify bias and confounders. If you are thinking of getting some higher education at some point it could be useful. I'll leave it up to you.

[dan]

They are still their opinions. What matters is their data. You could identify the data points you want to talk about.

Not really. As the top experts in their field, they are trusted by thousands of lawmakers. They have testified in front of government officials and their works are instrumental in the making of policy in the US.

But criminals with guns do murder people, more easily and frequently than those without. Recall the relatively unarmed citizens of Canada get killed far less often, although supposedly the outlaws are supposed to have all the guns. Who knew?

When I'm concerned mainly with the ability of a sixty or seventy year old woman to take down a twenty year old man, the ability or desire of a criminal gets almost no consideration.

I would consider Canada, but they are only one-tenth the size of the US.

If this has anything to do with the quote of mine you are responding to, I can't tell.

Really? You said, "Furthermore, we don't even know if the 1500-2800 defensive killings actually stopped an offensive killing. There is no way to know that."

Actually, the police fully investigate any shooting to determine it's validity. The FBI says it checks the self-defense shootings for reversals in status, but always come up with about one-tenth the amount.

Cost/benefit? At about a million dollars a trial, assuming the perp is caught, that's 2.8 billion dollars saved by the government. Puny, huh?

We're not talking about serial killers or hitmen though. We're talking about the other 99% of murders.

You are wrong. At least two known serial killers have been shot by armed citizens, and one was killed. The only serial killer killed by all of law enforcement in the US was shot, less than an hour before, by a civilian.

Consider, therefore, that in Canada, the civilian armed population would have only, at the maximum, a tenth of our chance of catching a serial killer.

Of course, just the civilian concealed carry subset (about 1.5 million) of the US constitutes what would be a force almost three times that of all police forces combined. With about 20 million gunowners in the US it seems natural that someone from that group would be "on scene" and, because of their expertise in firearms, capable and willing to do what was necessary.

Perhaps you are wondering, what expertise in firearms? The NRA trains 2-5 thousand law enforcement personel a year. Many are former Special Forces, military, and police. Many more are hunters and sportsmen.

This also has nothing to do with the point. You have no way of knowing, in a given circumstance, whether a given intervention would have changed an outcome. Assuming so, is the opposite of scientific.

Sorry, again, we see the scenario repeated every year, over and over again: women and even children taking down criminals, scaring them away and even killing them.

You are struggling to understand a significant point here. I'm not sure how to explain this so you will get it. Basically you don't understand how just asking a bunch of people about defensive gun use is not reliable information. Because people can see cause and effect in any way they want, and report it the way they see it. What is useful, is changes in gun laws, and then observations of homicide rates. For example it doesn't matter if defensive uses are 1 or 1 million. What matters is, does the current policy actually reduce homocides?

I was thinking the same of you.

When one point five million people take the responsibility to carry a gun in the US we have tripled the amount of "good" guns on the street. The drop in crime is amazing.

Lott claimed that, "nine of ten states achieved a drop in violent crime as a result of these (non-discretionary concealed handgun) laws and eight of the ten achieved declines in murder rates. In the states where violent crimes, murders or robberies rose the increases were very small. In fact, the largest increases were smaller than the smallest declines."-"More Guns, Less Crime Second Edition" pg 79.

I don't have experts. I use data, it doesn't matter to me who the people are if the study is good. The studies I refer to have been linked.

And yet you promote the Philadelphia study that uses an obsolete technique of using proxies. why?

All those are claims you would have to back up. You believe that's what those studies prove, but you don't know. A more expensive gun may be more lethal, but that doens't mean its what criminals use for crimes more often. Those ideas are not necessarily linked. When TIME did an article on BAFT (linked earlier) trace requests by police regarding guns recovered in crimes, cheap concealable guns were disproportionately cited.

Again, you don't see it. On the one hand I want the poor person to be able to afford a measure of protection, on the other, I want the SNS's to pervade the criminal community. They are less lethal. Every criminal can be the Lorcin Kid with two of them for all I care.

But they didn't compensate for circumstantial factors. That's exactly what the study admits it did not do, and why its a problem.

I disagree, the problem is that even when you do compensate the results are inconsistent.

That's why Kleck decried the claim that the relationship between guns and murder could be shown at all.

But, if you want to show that is untrue where is your data?

Whichever one has convinced you that there are all these great studies exist that make the points you hope they make.

No, that was Kleck, Lott, Mustard, Gertz, Mauser, and all the rest that proclaimed it loud and clear, at least to me:

... there is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States; (2) U.S. cities;
(3) counties within Illinois; (4) country-sized areas similar to England; (U.S. states); (5)
regions of the United States; (6) nations; or (7) population subgroups ...From Don Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser's "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE"

Perhaps you missed that one?

Self defense shootings are not the same thing as defensive gun uses. I'd like to know which one you are talking about.

How big a line do you think there is between a criminal that backs down and one that doesn't?

That is the entire difference between a shooting situation and a "scare away".

You have no way to knowing this is the truth though. It's not the truth because you agree with it. You don't work in sciences or any field involving scientific inquiry, do you?

I've never been in any field that involves scientific inquiry, but I've carried a gun for 37 years. I have 11 experiences that tell me that the studies that Kleck, Kates, Mauser, and Lott are accurate.

You just read about it, I've lived it.

See cited studies.

The one with the one city, obsolete techniques, and no repetition or the one with the one state and no repetition?

Seems you're off topic here. What are you talking about?

Just that if guns cause crime where is the grand increase in crime from concealed carry?

You haven't in any way show that the research is telling us that. Somebody's opinion column about the what the research shows is not the same as actually looking at it.

Funny thing, no one, except you and the pervayers of these isolated studies, thinks that any more research is necessary. Even the pervayers of these wonderful studies haven't bothered to write a book on them, and no one has a series of studies that contradicts the data that is held as more reliable than those by Lott, Kleck, Wright,et al.

(From Don Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser's "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE")

... there is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States; (2) U.S. cities;
(3) counties within Illinois; (4) country-sized areas similar to England; (U.S. states); (5)
regions of the United States; (6) nations; or (7) population subgroups ...

Maybe you should wait until your database is as big as mine.

I haven't touted a hypothesis. I've provided the studies that support my point.

Single, isolated studies, sorry, I have 25 studies going back to 1932. I have the most intricate and comprehensive study ever done (Kleck/Gertz 1993). I have the largest study ever done (Lott/Mustard 1997). I have a study that show criminals admitting to being more afraid of civilians with guns than they are of police(Wright/Rossi 2000). I have a study that shows guns as one of the most viable weapons against attack(Kleck 2001). And, except for the initial studies, whose purpose was to show a relationship between guns and murder, they all agree.

No relationship between guns and murder.

Guns reduce crime overall, generally.

Guns are a benefit to police and the economy.

Then surely you can prove this.

Well, sort of, I guess.

I have one newsletter admitting to having Kleck testifying before the Pennsylvania Legislature and one researcher (Lott) claiming to have testified before the Nebraska Legislature before the Governor's Veto of concealed carry was overridden by that deliberative body.

You can search for the rest, if you want.

You wouldn't know since you haven't read it. Virtually any study done in the last 20 years is available online. Make and effort, find the one you like, and we can talk about it. So far you've only done so with the Koper study.

I have "Armed" and "More Guns, Less Crime #2" amongst others. Would you like me to find something for you?

Oh, that's right you live in a library.

I did so, also providing you with the study link when making he corresponding point.

Which post was that?

If those sources have the data you want, identify it. That link takes me to a page full of links. Identify the data you are interested in. I can't read your mind and figure out which points you believe exist there, and then respond to them.

Where's your scientific curiosity?

I'm sure that's important to you, but it's unhelpful to the debate because there is no real info in a list of people.

The difference is, as you mentioned, these people, and their works, are all on the web.

Which has nothing to do with whehter CCW laws overall make a soceity safer or not.

If the victim has made sure that a particular bad guy will never harm anyone ever again, of course he's made the world safer.

Besides,less PTSD, and, I believe, PTSD without the "Totally Helpless" aspect is key to a person's ability and willingness to continue carrying a gun, after the encounter. I don't know what the suicide rate of persons that have been victimized by criminals, but I hear that many live with "Helpless Nightmares" for the rest of their lives. The victims that shoot their attackers also have nightmares, but when they wake up they know that the attacker was in just as much trouble as the victim.

This 43% comes from where?

Oh, another unknown analysis. This one done by Shear and Masters for the Washington Post titled, "Two Counties: A Dangerous Difference-April 6, 1998.

I read the Maryland study you mentioned, the conclusion is another admittance of inadequacy as in Koper.

[NHL Fever]

Not really. As the top experts in their field, they are trusted by thousands of lawmakers. They have testified in front of government officials and their works are instrumental in the making of policy in the US.

In your opinion, yet to be supported.

When I'm concerned mainly with the ability of a sixty or seventy year old woman to take down a twenty year old man, the ability or desire of a criminal gets almost no consideration.

I would consider Canada, but they are only one-tenth the size of the US.

And yet old ladies are much safer from violence in Canada. Population size is totally irrelevant.

Really? You said, "Furthermore, we don't even know if the 1500-2800 defensive killings actually stopped an offensive killing. There is no way to know that."

Actually, the police fully investigate any shooting to determine it's validity. The FBI says it checks the self-defense shootings for reversals in status, but always come up with about one-tenth the amount.

So? You still can't know what would have happened, whether you investigate or not makes no difference, you can't know this.

Cost/benefit? At about a million dollars a trial, assuming the perp is caught, that's 2.8 billion dollars saved by the government. Puny, huh?

What are you comparing here? Less gun deaths means less cost to society. We have far fewer gun deaths.

You are wrong. At least two known serial killers have been shot by armed citizens, and one was killed. The only serial killer killed by all of law enforcement in the US was shot, less than an hour before, by a civilian.

Consider, therefore, that in Canada, the civilian armed population would have only, at the maximum, a tenth of our chance of catching a serial killer.

Of course, just the civilian concealed carry subset (about 1.5 million) of the US constitutes what would be a force almost three times that of all police forces combined. With about 20 million gunowners in the US it seems natural that someone from that group would be "on scene" and, because of their expertise in firearms, capable and willing to do what was necessary.

Perhaps you are wondering, what expertise in firearms? The NRA trains 2-5 thousand law enforcement personel a year. Many are former Special Forces, military, and police. Many more are hunters and sportsmen.

Who cares? Serial killers commit next to no murders. Being obsessed with them makes no sense when 99%+ of murders are not serial killers.

Sorry, again, we see the scenario repeated every year, over and over again: women and even children taking down criminals, scaring them away and even killing them.

But your murder rate is the highest in the developed world. So it's not working.

I was thinking the same of you.

When one point five million people take the responsibility to carry a gun in the US we have tripled the amount of "good" guns on the street. The drop in crime is amazing.

Lott claimed that, "nine of ten states achieved a drop in violent crime as a result of these (non-discretionary concealed handgun) laws and eight of the ten achieved declines in murder rates. In the states where violent crimes, murders or robberies rose the increases were very small. In fact, the largest increases were smaller than the smallest declines."-"More Guns, Less Crime Second Edition" pg 79.

I've responded to this point multiple times. Here goes again.....what Lott fails to mention is that ALL states had this decrease, including states with no CCW. In fact, even in the states with CCW, its didn't matter when the introduce CCW, they all had the same trend over the same time. In other words, it wasn't the CCW.
See page 1208 for graph illustrating this point. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/c...ime%20pg.79%22

And yet you promote the Philadelphia study that uses an obsolete technique of using proxies. why?

Be specific with what you don't agree with.

Again, you don't see it. On the one hand I want the poor person to be able to afford a measure of protection, on the other, I want the SNS's to pervade the criminal community. They are less lethal. Every criminal can be the Lorcin Kid with two of them for all I care.

No I do see it....you logic that is. What I don't see is how that makes it reality. Lower cost means greater access. Greater access means more murders. We don't have to guess at this, we know that the BAFT traces were for SNL's disproportionately. That means they were used more often in crimes. Your theory about how this might otherwise work doesn't change that reality.

I disagree, the problem is that even when you do compensate the results are inconsistent.

Doesn't matter if you disagree, it says right in the paper they didn't do it. Controlling for many factors is important, Koper properly identifies this problem, and to its credit, admits that it did not overcome it.

No, that was Kleck, Lott, Mustard, Gertz, Mauser, and all the rest that proclaimed it loud and clear, at least to me:

... there is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States; (2) U.S. cities;
(3) counties within Illinois; (4) country-sized areas similar to England; (U.S. states); (5)
regions of the United States; (6) nations; or (7) population subgroups ...From Don Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser's "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE"

Perhaps you missed that one?

That's not data. That's a statement. A statement by the way which disagrees with your point of view, which is why I'm not sure why you're posting it. Your view is that guns reduce crimes. This claim says that no, there is no association. That is different from your claim. Please figure out what exactly you are arguing for.

How big a line do you think there is between a criminal that backs down and one that doesn't?

That is the entire difference between a shooting situation and a "scare away".

Not sure how random speculation will inform us in any way.

I've never been in any field that involves scientific inquiry, but I've carried a gun for 37 years. I have 11 experiences that tell me that the studies that Kleck, Kates, Mauser, and Lott are accurate.

You just read about it, I've lived it.

lol. Do you believe this is an argument? At least I know where you're coming from.....your point of view is informed by your personal emotional commitment to the idea. We don't need data, now everybody's experience is valid as wrote truth for all........Lord help us.

The one with the one city, obsolete techniques, and no repetition or the one with the one state and no repetition?

Nope, the ones I've cited.

Funny thing, no one, except you and the pervayers of these isolated studies, thinks that any more research is necessary. Even the pervayers of these wonderful studies haven't bothered to write a book on them, and no one has a series of studies that contradicts the data that is held as more reliable than those by Lott, Kleck, Wright,et al.

(From Don Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser's "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE")

... there is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States; (2) U.S. cities;
(3) counties within Illinois; (4) country-sized areas similar to England; (U.S. states); (5)
regions of the United States; (6) nations; or (7) population subgroups ...

Maybe you should wait until your database is as big as mine.

But you won't know until you actually read what's in your database. As far as who thinks we need more study, I can't speak for anyone else, but apparently you think you can. I've never suggested we don't need more study, those are your words.

Single, isolated studies, sorry, I have 25 studies going back to 1932.

Of which you don't have a not clue what any of them really say. Well....except for Koper which we now know a little bit about.

I have the most intricate and comprehensive study ever done (Kleck/Gertz 1993). I have the largest study ever done (Lott/Mustard 1997). I have a study that show criminals admitting to being more afraid of civilians with guns than they are of police(Wright/Rossi 2000). I have a study that shows guns as one of the most viable weapons against attack(Kleck 2001). And, except for the initial studies, whose purpose was to show a relationship between guns and murder, they all agree.

The more guns less crime theory is eviscerated in the above linked standard review study. As far as the others, you would need to reference the specific points you believe support your point of view.

Guns reduce crime overall, generally.

Guns are a benefit to police and the economy.

The only thing you've posted so far is the Koper study, which has serious and self-admitted flaws. Don't just assume it's out there......find it and we can talk about it.

I have one newsletter admitting to having Kleck testifying before the Pennsylvania Legislature and one researcher (Lott) claiming to have testified before the Nebraska Legislature before the Governor's Veto of concealed carry was overridden by that deliberative body.

Legislatures have tons of people testify them all the time, it doesn't mean they make laws based on their opinions.

I have "Armed" and "More Guns, Less Crime #2" amongst others. Would you like me to find something for you?

Oh, that's right you live in a library.

You misunderstood. I haven't asked you to list titles, I've asked you to reference data. You've never read any of those titles, so its hard for me to respond to the point you don't even know exists or not. I can't guess at what you think might be there and respond to it. I need you to SPECIFICALLY identify the data you want, and then I can look at it. Like when you made points quoting the Koper study.

Where's your scientific curiosity?

Still curious as to what in world you imagine those studies contain. Maybe one day you'll reference it.

The difference is, as you mentioned, these people, and their works, are all on the web.

That not a difference, your opinion is also now on the web. Still not helpful to the debate. "Read the internet" is not an argument LOL.

If the victim has made sure that a particular bad guy will never harm anyone ever again, of course he's made the world safer.

Besides,less PTSD, and, I believe, PTSD without the "Totally Helpless" aspect is key to a person's ability and willingness to continue carrying a gun, after the encounter. I don't know what the suicide rate of persons that have been victimized by criminals, but I hear that many live with "Helpless Nightmares" for the rest of their lives. The victims that shoot their attackers also have nightmares, but when they wake up they know that the attacker was in just as much trouble as the victim.

Could be. However that has nothing to do with whether CCW laws make any safer in reality.

Oh, another unknown analysis. This one done by Shear and Masters for the Washington Post titled, "Two Counties: A Dangerous Difference-April 6, 1998.

Link it, SPECIFICALLY. I can't do all your homework for you.

I read the Maryland study you mentioned, the conclusion is another admittance of inadequacy as in Koper.

The 'inadequacy' you're referring to, is that the study followed only two years after the ban. The reason is that it's always possible 2 years was just a fluke. It doesn't mean the data is wrong, which shows a 10-11% decrease in homicides after the ban. This is in no way similar to Koper's limitation, which is that he didn't control for any variables.

[Faithful 1]

Ah. So you've never heard of people being stabbed in the heart with a knife or hit hard enough in the head with a bat to be killed? I find that extremely difficult to believe. In fact, I call B.S. on you. People can kill each other with all kinds of things, not just guns. You can even punch somebody with a bare fist in the head hard enough to kill them if you really want them dead.

True; like I've said before, Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my gun.

Furthermore...'The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed ..." -2ndAmendment to the US Constitution

....

[dan]

And yet old ladies are much safer from violence in Canada. Population size is totally irrelevant.

For whatever reason, my family's older women, even though they know about Canada's greater safety, won't move there. So, I guess we will just have to tough it out.

One of our Founding Fathers once said, "If one is willing to give up a Liberty for a perceived bit of safety, he deserves neither."

Population is one of the major factors in the production of violence in any country.

Are you sure you read Donahue?

So? You still can't know what would have happened, whether you investigate or not makes no difference, you can't know this.

Does it matter? Our law says that some actions are intolerable and worthy of death. Hmmm, just like the Bible.

What are you comparing here? Less gun deaths means less cost to society. We have far fewer gun deaths.

Perhaps, but you never get rid of your criminals, whereas some of ours never make the same mistake again. The would-have-been-victims have saved not only the prosecution costs, but, housing and probation as well. Not to mention the repeat of the episode if the criminal decided to become a recidivist.

Canada continues to recycle their criminals, and their costs.

Who cares? Serial killers commit next to no murders. Being obsessed with them makes no sense when 99%+ of murders are not serial killers.

I wouldn't call it an "obsession", how about, "a side benefit to our willingness to clean our own pool".

But your murder rate is the highest in the developed world. So it's not working.

No, actually, it's working just as it's planned:

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the first down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can hope for concerning the public at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, "The Federalist Papers" ( page 184-8 ).

“Honor, justice and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.

We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.”— Thomas Jefferson, “Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms,” 6 July 1775

"The great object is, that every man be armed...."- Patrick Henry, 1788.

I've responded to this point multiple times. Here goes again.....what Lott fails to mention is that ALL states had this decrease, including states with no CCW. In fact, even in the states with CCW, its didn't matter when the introduce CCW, they all had the same trend over the same time. In other words, it wasn't the CCW.
See page 1208 for graph illustrating this point.

Sorry, must be something wrong with Vernick's coding, then, because Lott did controls for trends versus study results (pg 70 "More Guns, Less Crime")(also graphs 4-4 through 4-9).

Also, Lott's study has been repeated twice, with similar results. Once, officially, by Plassman and Tideman in "Confirming More Guns, Less Crime".

Come to think of it, why did Ayers use Vernick's coding?

No I do see it....you logic that is. What I don't see is how that makes it reality. Lower cost means greater access. Greater access means more murders. We don't have to guess at this, we know that the BAFT traces were for SNL's disproportionately. That means they were used more often in crimes. Your theory about how this might otherwise work doesn't change that reality.

I don't think you see it.

Unfortunately, most of the BATFE traces that are done happen to be SNS's, but that doesn't mean that the SNS's are the most involved gun in crime.

Only about ten percent of violent crimes involve a gun. Barely seven per cent of crime guns are SNS's.

Seven out of a hundred!

Go, find another crutch.

Doesn't matter if you disagree, it says right in the paper they didn't do it. Controlling for many factors is important, Koper properly identifies this problem, and to its credit, admits that it did not overcome it.

It seems that all the researchers that didn't have what it takes to make their study adequate spend some time apologizing for it.

Another reason to stick to the researchers that took care of business at the start.

Like Kleck, Lott, Mauser, and Kates.

That's not data. That's a statement. A statement by the way which disagrees with your point of view, which is why I'm not sure why you're posting it. Your view is that guns reduce crimes. This claim says that no, there is no association. That is different from your claim. Please figure out what exactly you are arguing for.

I didn't know you needed an interpretation. OK.

Access to guns does not affect the amount of homicides (Kates, Mauser, Kleck).

Access to guns only increases the amount of gun homicides the overall amount of homicides stays, generally, the same.

That is because most homicides are a matter of intent, not a matter of weaponry.

CCW reduces all forms of crime, subject to the criminals perception of the popularity and enthusiasm of the plan with the community.

Actually, my view is that guns possessed by good guys that are willing to use them reduce crime. The more of that flavor, the better.

Not sure how random speculation will inform us in any way.

Random speculation is what brought some to do the research that has been done.

lol. Do you believe this is an argument? At least I know where you're coming from.....your point of view is informed by your personal emotional commitment to the idea. We don't need data, now everybody's experience is valid as wrote truth for all........Lord help us.

I disagree. My emotional commitment is to my observed reality, backed up by the best research ever done on the subject.

I've seen the bad guys run away, you just read about it, and doubt it.

Nope, the ones I've cited.

Those are the ones cited.

But you won't know until you actually read what's in your database. As far as who thinks we need more study, I can't speak for anyone else, but apparently you think you can. I've never suggested we don't need more study, those are your words.

Since, what appears to be the definitive empirical studies have been done, and, the only oppositiion has been meaningless short-term studies, isolated flukes, and falsified data that can't be repeated, and has to be appologized for because the researchers haven't the foresight to prepare properly, I have judged.

You'll have to do better than that.

Of which you don't have a not clue what any of them really say. Well....except for Koper which we now know a little bit about.

I know that Kates, Mauser, Kleck, and Lott have done the world a service, and that the opposition is stumped.

The more guns less crime theory is eviscerated in the above linked standard review study. As far as the others, you would need to reference the specific points you believe support your point of view.

Sorry, the Lott study has been repeated successfully, twice.

When will Donahue repeat Lott to show it's a fraud? All he's done is change the coding.

The only thing you've posted so far is the Koper study, which has serious and self-admitted flaws. Don't just assume it's out there......find it and we can talk about it.

Kleck has no flaws. Ayers and Donahue have flaws though, don't they?

Vernick has flaws also.

Legislatures have tons of people testify them all the time, it doesn't mean they make laws based on their opinions.

I know, it was really magic that ten states passed CCW into law in one year (1995).

Could be. However that has nothing to do with whether CCW laws make any safer in reality.

Well, if you don't KNOW that taking a bad guy out eliminates his future as a threat to anyone, and that the area the bad guy operated in is therefore safer, you must not believe that the bad guy was ever taken out.
Is that right?

Link it, SPECIFICALLY. I can't do all your homework for you.

Sorry. This one costs money. You have the newspaper, title, and date.

Go and get it, if you want it.

The 'inadequacy' you're referring to, is that the study followed only two years after the ban. The reason is that it's always possible 2 years was just a fluke. It doesn't mean the data is wrong, which shows a 10-11% decrease in homicides after the ban. This is in no way similar to Koper's limitation, which is that he didn't control for any variables.

Knowing that duration of a study is significant, as well as population and number of subjects, one wonders why studies aren't structured around the troubling variables. But, no, the people that would have us believe something other than what long duratiion studies show, or what studies that have 10 or 20 states involved show always give us something that could be considered inadequate in this regard.
That is what makes even their motives suspect, IMO.