I guess this ends the gun debate once and for allFollow

Yes. Because in virtually every single case within the US, when gun control laws are strict, crime rates increase, and when they are loose crime rates decrease. We can debate social theories as to the how and why, but the results (which are what should matter to us) are incredibly clear.

What's happening is that there are a whole bunch of liberal thinkers who simply assume that fewer guns should equal fewer crime. When they see the data which shows otherwise, instead of doing what they should do (adjust their theories), they instead embark on meandering trips through the data to attempt to find a way to spin it so that their starting assumption can be made to appear to be true. When the data doesn't support their answer, it's flawed, or failed to take into account some other factors. When it does go their way (and it rarely does btw), it's heralded from the highest places of academia as "proof" that gun control is the right way to go.


It's hard to find a more biased area of research than this one.



Not at all. In this case, I'm looking at actual crime statistics over time.


Let me put this another way. The default case in this country is that the government cannot infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. It's right there in our Constitution. Ergo, in order to infringe said right, the gun control proponents need to show abundant proof that by doing so, and only by doing so some significant sociological benefit can be gained. And it has to be huge and demonstrative.

And yet, every single time the data shows that areas with less strict gun laws have lower crime rates, it's dismissed as occurring as a result of other factors. But that's really irrelevant, isn't it? They need to show absolute proof that they are right, not simply show that the other guy might not be. And that's the best the gun control folks can do. They can only show that loser gun control laws might not be responsible for the reduction of crime in the area since the laws were loosened. They can't show the opposite, nor do they even attempt to do so.


The burden is on the gun control advocates, but they act as though it isn't. That's why the research is so skewed. Much of it starts with assumptions which are unfounded anywhere other than in the heads of the people writing the papers. We're supposed to start with the assumption that the 2nd amendment is law and then show a good reason to need to infringe it. When you can show me a body of data which supports that position, I'll pay more attention to it.

Yeah, I'd like to see something like the gun death rate per capita, divided by the poverty rate and the population density.

Hey! Great idea. We'll do that, and place a weighting factor on poverty and population density, then we'll just fudge a few more figures, adjust some constants, and will you look at that! Gun control works. It really really does!

Lol...

tricksy,



Don't forget to include race and percentage of people on welfare.

Sure. Glad you agree that more data is better than less data. You're actually ahead of Gbaji on this one -- congratulations!

I think you mean 'gather more information'.

Of course, you wouldn't be so defensive if you didn't think that more information would weaken your argument.

He's Almalieque's soul mate.

Jophed,



Not true. Studies, in fact, show just the opposite.

You now have a well established representative government that you elect. You choose them on a regular basis, they don't rule you so there is nothing to defend yourself against internally and that government that you choose maintains an armed force to protect you from outside nations. The right to bear arms was a protection in case the new government turned out like the previous government (no representation). It didn't happen, it's not going to happen.

So yes, conditions have changed, drastically.

Hunting for food turns a weapon into a tool, there's no reason to ban a tool as long as the tool is being used for its intended purpose. There is a hell of a reason to ban that AK47 you have just in case your no longer existent enemy happens to roll up on your door step. That's what your publicly funded military/police force is for, it keeps the weapons in trained hands while affording the protection you so desperately crave.

I think that's called "considering all the deltas".

Queen : I say! I can see the edge of the world over there!

Columbus : I have this sneaking suspicion that the edge of the world may in fact be further away than that, your Grace....In fact, if you would be so kind as to consider funding an expedition.....?

Queen : Don't be silly, Sir. I can see the edge. There it is../points. what further proof could one possibly need?

Coumbus : Ummmmm....As you say, my Lady....

Edited, Mar 30th 2010 6:53pm by paulsol

Columbus says he's going to travel to the Indies. He toodles about in his boat for a while, finds some land, grabs a few natives and returns.

"I went to the Indies!"
"You sure about that? Our sciencey guys say that the Indies would be a lot further away than you were gone for."
"Hellz yeah! I've got some Indians right here! What else is there to question? Stop trying to confuse the issue!"
"Huh. Well, no arguing with that. Guess you went to the Indies."

Historical analogies are fun!

She'd be right in your example as well. Columbus thought, wrongly, that the Earth was about one third its actual size and insisted that he could reach the Indies. He completely lucked out in that there was a continent right about where he would have run out of food and water. He mistakenly thought he reached the Indies because it made sense to him and told everyone it was true based on some collected trinkets and natives. But it wasn't true, he never did reach the Indies and later data collection would prove that Columbus was a lucky idiot, not a navigational mastermind.

But, hey, great analogy!

Edited, Mar 30th 2010 2:20pm by Jophiel