Guns and freedom

[MarkG]

That's the point. The government says, "We have bigger guns than you (or in some countries, we have guns and you don't), so you better do what we say." It's an intimidation thing.

i dont know if that's what happens in your country, but in my country the goverment says "you elected us for four years so we do what we want". sometimes the people respond by saying "no way are you geting elected again" and then the goverment says "i'd better try to cover this up somehow" and changes it's mind
we call it democracy

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

The author states that the Jonesboro crime was commited in a place where gun possession was already illegal. This is a patently absurd statement. It is not illegal to own guns in Arkansas! Is this a sample of the quality of the author's work?

I believe the author may have been referring to that it is illegal to sell a gun to a minor (I'm not sure about possession though). AFAIK, Lott has no axe to grind one way or the other over gun laws and crime stats, he didnt expect to get the results he did.

The points he made that I thought were pertinent are such as this:

"Q: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

A: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships"

You know that stats can be manipulated by a variety of mechanisms. What Lott did was to pull apart the more generalized stats such as "acquaintance murders" and look at the parts.

The results of that analysis contradicted many of the views put forward by the gun-control media.

[SpencerH]

Heres the original article from the Journal of Legal Studies Univ of Chicago press. Its long but 'enlightening'.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Heres the original article from the Journal of Legal Studies Univ of Chicago press. Its long but 'enlightening'.

Oh yeah! It's enlightening all right. Did you think that I wouldn't catch on to the slight of hand these @(*^$&# used by applying the "dummy variable" to compensate for the fact that they were comparing full year statistics of counties which did not have "shall issue" concealed weapon laws with partial year statistics of those counties which had enacted such laws during the study. Applying such compensatory calculations to a statistical study merely reduces the power of the study. It would have been better to do a prospective study using matched pairing over a longer period of time.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MarkG

That's the point. The government says, "We have bigger guns than you (or in some countries, we have guns and you don't), so you better do what we say." It's an intimidation thing.

i dont know if that's what happens in your country, but in my country the goverment says "you elected us for four years so we do what we want". sometimes the people respond by saying "no way are you geting elected again" and then the goverment says "i'd better try to cover this up somehow" and changes it's mind
we call it democracy

Democracy? You mean like when the Army says they are taking over?

Try that in the US...

[MarkG]

blah

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Oh yeah! It's enlightening all right. Did you think that I wouldn't catch on to the slight of hand these @(*^$&# used by applying the "dummy variable" to compensate for the fact that they were comparing full year statistics of counties which did not have "shall issue" concealed weapon laws with partial year statistics of those counties which had enacted such laws during the study. Applying such compensatory calculations to a statistical study merely reduces the power of the study. It would have been better to do a prospective study using matched pairing over a longer period of time.

Of course it would. That doesnt change the fact that its the most comprehensive study out there (and better than the crap that preceeded it). Now at least theres something to discuss compared to the usual uncited comment about how gun ownership doesnt reduce crime.