Ethereal

Where? You have yet to provide any specific evidence which would support your conclusion.

It's only obscure in that the vast majority of people do not have instant access to such a source. If I referenced an article from Time magazine that was written two years ago and didn't provide you with any specific citation, link, or data pertaining to said article you would certainly be accurate in characterising it as obscure.

I'm sure the methods they used to collect the data are sound. What I'm concerned with is why you feel the inferences they've made based upon this data are valid.

Once again, the onus does not fall upon me to validate your sources. Simply parroting the conclusions of a study does not make them valid. It is your responsibility to substantiate these claims by providing specific data from them, making inferences based on that data, and then explaining why (in your own words) these inferences meet certain logical prerequisites.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not here to debate with Mr. Duggan. Instead of repeating the conclusions of others why don't you formulate your own opinion and then, if you wish, cite data from these studies in order to substantiate your claims. That's how a proper debate is conducted.

If we all debated like you every thread would look like this...

Ethereal:
Study Concludes Guns Do Not Cause Crime - Johnson & Smith.

Scucca:
Study Concludes Guns Do Cause Crime - Franklin & Jones.

Ethereal:
Study Concludes Franklin & Jones Not Credible - Watson & Crick.

So on and so forth...

It seems they're of no interest to the debate because they point out a logical fallacy in your argument. You base the need to reduce "overconsumption" of firearms on their "cost" to society, so if one were to adhere to your logic - that the price of goods should be representative of their negative externalities - then other goods should also suffer from exorbitant taxation in order to reflect their negative externalities. How is this not a relevant comparison?

Yes, in their current form they certainly are, but if we adhered to your logic the price of cigarrettes would have to accurately reflect the negative externalities they engender. So, if an eighteen-hundred dollar liscensing fee for a firearm is enough to offset its negative externalities then I suppose a pack of cigarettes should cost around a hundred dollars, or maybe people could just pay a lump sum of around $10,000 per year to smoke.

It doesn't change the fact that consuming hamburgers engenders negative externalities.

The same could be said of firearms. The vast majority of guns are never used to commit a crime, just as a single hamburger won't immediately cause heart failure. It's your position that a firearm's price should comprehensively represent its negative externalities, so I merely suggested that the price of a hamburger or cigarette should comprehensively represent their negative externalities as well.

One could never hope to specifically tax the firearm which would be used in a crime, just as one could never hope to specifically tax the cheeseburger which will push a person towards obesity.

You haven't provided one ounce of data. All you've done is repeat the conclusions arrived at by these studies - this does not constitute evidence.

So, my only option is to debate you by proxy? Doesn't sound very stimulating.

I was simply repeating what you said. It is by your own admission that if there were less guns then there would be less criminals, i.e. people would be less likely to engage in criminal activity in the absense of firearms. This obviously makes no sense at all as crime is driven by desperation and as anyone knows a desperate man will either, a: find a firearm regardless of gun laws, or b: find an alternate weapon or means to commit the crime.

It requires little effort to rebutt your shoddily constructed arguments. Well, to be fair, they're not actually your arguments...

Scucca

I'm up to 5 published peer reviewed articles now. They're not hidden.

More people do have access to tabloid newspapers. However, I'm not prepared to weaken my appropriate research techniques out of pure laziness (given these articles are available to anyone). Also it is very important to refer to the available literature as, without that process, warped understanding is encouraged. The classic example is the libertarian that tends to be forced fed low brow material from weak internet snake oil site.

I haven't referred to a magazine. I've referred to one of the most respected economic journals. That is good practice and I refuse to accept dumbing down my approach just because you are less aware of the empirical literature.

They've adopted standard regression techniques and adopt sound methodology, including tests for statistical bias and robustness. I have no reason to doubt its validity. However, being a good egg, I've supported that evidence with other sources (using different data and different econometric methodology)

I have no need for you to do that. I've chosen particularly well, referring to the best available sources on the topic.

I'm happy to have a debate about their approach and any potential empirical problems. You're not making any comment that enables that though.

I've given you a summary of their data, their empirical methodology and their results. Anything else you need?

You're not debating. You've made a list of errors and I'm having to spend my time having to inform you of their nature. It is not my fault that there is so much peer reviewed material that agrees with the hypothesis. Unless you want to get into a conversation over econometric specifics (which I'm assuming is beyond you), your only option is to refer to alternative sources.

A silly comment. I'm not referring to opinion. I'm describing how the empirical literature cannot reject the hypothesis that “more guns=more crime”.

Nope. You've simply made very poor error, failing to understand the nature of externalities. That is decidedly dull.

I've already informed you why you were wrong. You compared a gun (a durable good/bad), with a hamburger. You then showed utter contempt for the supply & demand approach (i.e. marginalism) by suggesting that each hamburger would have to receive a massive tax. You haven't appreciated that the externality per unit consumed is small. Large tax revenues would be secured with substantial levels of consumption. Its darn straight-forward and its particularly tedious that I have to waste my time educating you about it.

More silliness. The data sets are not given in the articles. I'm hoping you mean the results from the econometric analysis of the data. What do you want? Coefficients? T-ratios? Do you even have an understanding of regression analysis?

Given you cannot be bothered to look at the papers directly, you could refer to something that may support an alternative hypothesis. I'd be happy to peruse it and describe any empirical problems that it may exhibit. I have a work ethic.

Nope, you took my comments and wrote a complete load of tosh around it. That you haven't appreciated that yet troubles me.

Shameful comment given you have made 2 replies now that are free from valid argument. Buck your ideas up

__________________

Ethereal

Which offer up nothing but a conclusion. A conclusion in and of itself is not inherently logical. You must offer up specific data which would substaniate these conclusions.

This is getting very old. I don't have the time, means, or money to go searching for your sources, nor is the onus on me to do so. You must understand that if one offers only the conclusion of a study as the sole substantiation for their personal convictions it is not the responsibility of their opponents to find and subsequently research said study. You must provide data from the study which specifically supports your own personal conclusions - then, and only then, does the onus fall upon me to rebutt your inferences.

There's nothing wrong with refering to the available literature, however when all you do is refer to their conclusions without providing the associated data then there is no reason for me to take you seriously.

Is it really so hard for you to harvest some data from these studies and then make your own logical inferences?

You're totally missing the point. If I reference the conclusions of any study (no matter how reputable it is) yet fail to provide you with a link or the specific data used to substaniate those claims then by way of practicality my reference becomes obscure as it is not readily available to your scrutiny.

You can't just post the conclusions of a study and when asked about the specific data contained within it flippantly suggest I go search for it myself. You provided the study, therefor you must substaniate its claims. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Once again, this does not answer my question. I'm certain the methods they used to gather their numbers are quite accurate, what I'm asking you is why the inferences they've made in regards to the data is logical?

All I'm asking you is to cite specific data gathered by these studies, arrive at your own conclusion based upon that data, and then explain in you own words the logic of your conclusion. This is not an unreasonable request. This is standard operating procedure for debates.

Here's an example - study "A" found that Cincinatti only had one gun per household, as such it would seem that their lower crime rate is resultant from their relatively lower gun ownership when compared to cities in the same region.

Now I will break it down for you. The emboldened text represents specific data (one gun per household) gathered from a specific study (study A). The underlined text represents my conclusion (which, of course, may agree with the conclusion presented by the study itself). And finally the italicised text represents a logical context for my conclusion.

Try this. It'll feel good to actually post something you thought of yourself.

Just because you refered to a source does not make it inherently valid. You must personally extrapolate upon its data and inferences. I'm not sure if you're capable of this logical leap.

When you feel like posting any sort of empircal data on the topic I will gladly adress any inferences made from it.

A summary of their data? Where? I haven't seen you post a single statistic in regards to these studies.

No, simpleton. Once again you've missed the point. I didn't come here to debate the scientist responsible for the study. I could post a plethora of studies which would contradict your studies and then we wouldn't even have to talk with each other. What kind of debate would it be if all we did was post studies in lieu of making our own arguments? Because that's exactly what you're doing.

There's also numerous studies which disagree with your hypothesis, but since I'm a free-thinking individual who possess the ability to make my own logical inferences I won't be posting them as a refutation of your hypothesis. Anyone idiot can post the results of a study. We're here so that we can extrapolate upon and discuss the nature of their inferences and the implications of their data. Your method of debate basically amounts to, "because the scientist says so".

Oh my. You're ever so smart. Now, if only you could use that brain for something other than using the copy and paste feature.

That remains to be seen. Reference some statistics, make some inferences of your own, and then we can proceed accordingly.

You informed me I was wrong? Well, why didn't you just tell me I was wrong in the first place? We could have avoided this entire discussion...sigh.

Anyway, it seems you negelcted to adress the logic I used to rebutt your fallacy. Perhaps you would like to adress it...


All I'm asking for is specific statistics which support the conclusion of these studies. Here's an example...

City A has this many guns, City B has this many guns. City A has this much violent crime, whereas City B has this much violent crime. In conclusion it appears the number of guns in City A is a causative factor in in its higher violence-related crime rate when compared to City B.

Simple enough for you?

No, what you have is a gross misunderstanding of how a debate works. Perhaps I can test your work ethic by posting an endless array of studies from all corners of the scientific community and then you can peruse them accordingly while meticulously analysing their empirical methodology for errors. Sound good?

Goobieman

Yes... which comes out to 29.3% of -all- violent crimes being committed w/ firearms.

.............Total #...%w/Gun........#w/ Gun
Murder......17,034.....69.7.............11872
Robbery...447,403.....42.2...........188804
Assault....860,853.....21.9...........188526
Total....1,325,290......................389203 = 29.3%

Table 1 - Crime in the United States 2006

Thus, demonstrating - with your numbers - that your claim that "most all criminal activity involves a gun" is incorrect.

It should also be noted that if the USDoJ's figure of 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year is off by half, there's still about twice as many guns used defensively than there are for crime -- effectively answering your question as to how guns can do more good to society "when they are built and used for one reason, to kill".

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

Scucca

I’ve described how they are consistent with the hypothesis. I’ve also shown willingness to refer to specific econometric details when warranted. You continue to attack without wonder or thought, reflecting only your knowledge deficiency over the nature of empirical analysis.

I’m prepared to give you the empirical methodologies, discuss the robustness tests and refer to the data sources. You’ve just come out with whinge. Lazy whinge at that! It would help if you let me know the level of your statistics understanding. Will I, for example, be wasting my time by referring to regression techniques?

Assuming your statistical understanding is minimal, you only require the conclusions. The econometrics will be beyond you after all. There is of course always the worry about statistical bias. However, to minimise those problems, I’ve stuck to publications in peer reviewed articles that have ensured quality checks.

This just shows that you’re rather clueless about empirical evidence. The data is not present in the study. There will be summary statistics, but one does not test hypothesis on raw data. I can refer to the exact findings in all pieces. Of course I’ve already achieved that by referring to the extent of the license fee that may be needed to internalise the negative externality from gun ownership.

You continue to whinge. I’ve provided all details that you may need. I’ve also been a jolly good egg and offered to provide any further information you need. Your attempt to hide from your gross error (i.e. failure to understand the nature of externalities, coupled with a laziness to present any counter evidence) is not entertaining. At least write with more flowery words to keep me going!

They’ve set up hypothesis, tested that hypothesis with regression technique and found evidence (i.e. in stats talk, significant variables) to support the crime effect. That is a rather standard approach.

I’ve followed correct procedure. I have a hypothesis: “more guns, more crime”. Given I’m not researching the topic directly, I do not have the data to test. Instead, I review the literature and summarise the findings from those that have. The only issue is whether any ‘test of significance’ is dodgy and reflects empirical bias. It is therefore imperative to do one’s best to find more than one study, examining the consequences of using a different data set and/or different empirical specification. I’ve done that. In comparison, you’ve sat here whinging when you could have been reading the articles directly.

More immaturity. I’ve never encountered someone that writes so much and says so little. The thread requires reference to the available evidence. I’ve achieved that. The extent that the sources are used is dependent on any further discussion. For example, you could argue that the externalities are so small that the bureaucracy costs make government regulation an inappropriate reaction. However, I’d just respond by referring to Cook & Ludwig’s findings, plus I’d throw in statistics such as the finding by Duggan that one third of the differential decline in gun, relative to non-gun, homicides, can be explained by reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun

Then you read badly! Tut, tut

Your true colours are obviously a shade of beige.

Debate? Sounds so lofty! You’ve offered nothing but whinge. This does not surprise me after you made such an appalling error over the nature of externalities. You’re clearly out of your depth.

If you did desire to grow a pair and offered a piece of evidence that disputes my hypothesis I’d be more than willing to entertain it. I’d go old school on you: I’d read it, look for methodological flaw and then entertain myself by presenting you with a summary. Offer something

Like what?

Seems to be beyond your capability!

You’re typing randomly now. Knock that off.

Your comments about externalities were totally bogus and suggested to me that you would struggle to make any relevant remark. That hypothesis looks bullet-proof!

You want to use raw data to prove a hypothesis? I’m not sure if that’s dreadfully idiotic or wonderfully innocent! One needs to use regression techniques to ensure that the ceteris paribus wonder holds. It is not possible to isolate any gun effect with raw data, given there are multiple effects impacting on crime. Regression techniques therefore have to be adopted. The data must be varied (preferably panel, given you then have cross sectional and time series differences in gun ownership rates). The researcher then has to test the significance of the gun variables, whilst at the same time testing for potential problems such as reverse causality (i.e. gun ownership rises as a self-defence mechanism as crime has already increased). The discussion about the papers will be centred on the appropriateness of the robustness tests adopted. Do you want to do that? Get your econometrics textbook out and get eyebrow raising?

That is 3 comments from you without any valid comment. It is getting a trifle tedious. I need to get you to concentrate. Try yoga?

Goobieman

You're even MORE full of shi'ite that I originally thought.

Scucca

You seem to be in a cheery mood. Perhaps you could now answer the 3 questions you dodged:

Only 3 diddy questions:

1) Can you give me the reference of the report?

2) Do you think that your "1.5 million is fact" statement is reasonable when it is based on 19 people?

3) Given Azrael and Hemenway (2000) find that you are over 6 times more likely to use your gun to threaten your spouse/child than an intruder, how numerous is such family abuse in America?

Thanks very much! Lets hope your cheeriness lasts

Ethereal

Scucca, I find it almost unbelieveable that you cannot abide by the simple protocol of a debate. I will attempt, one last time, to make you understand.

When you cite a source as a substantiation for your claims the onus does not fall upon your opponent to find and subsequently analyse the source. You are obligated to either, a: provide data/statistics pertaining to the report in order to substantiate your claims, or b: provide access to the study in question. You have done neither.

Something tells me you will not understand why this is crucial to the nature of a debate so I will humour you and pretend for one second that I am obligated to validate the sources you have provided.

This whole time I have actually tried to find your studies because I am not, as you think, lazy; I simply try to abide by the standard protocol of civilized debate. In regards to the first study you have provided, I cannot find it on the internet. And since you cannot provide access to this study its conclusions are not relevent to this debate as their methods and data (not your interpretation of their methods and data) are not available to my scrutiny.

In regards to your second study it reaches an obvious conclusion that has little relevence to anything. Everyone knows that gun related homicides will negatively effect the average lifespan of people, much the same as car crashes and hyperobesity negatively effect our average lifespan; this is not news. So, if you wish to argue this point, I will not dispute it as it is not damaging to my argument.

Now, since I've adressed the studies you've used to substantiate your claims (although I am not required to) let's move onto to an even more important matter which you have neglected to adress once again. Assuming that these studies are perfectly accurate in their conclusions there remains a fatal flaw in your logic which I have pointed with the following posts...

Yes, in their current form they certainly are, but if we adhered to your logic the price of cigarrettes would have to accurately reflect the negative externalities they engender. So, if an eighteen-hundred dollar liscensing fee for a firearm is enough to offset its negative externalities then I suppose a pack of cigarettes should cost around a hundred dollars, or maybe people could just pay a lump sum of around $10,000 per year to smoke.

It doesn't change the fact that consuming hamburgers engenders negative externalities.

The same could be said of firearms. The vast majority of guns are never used to commit a crime, just as a single hamburger won't immediately cause heart failure. It's your position that a firearm's price should comprehensively represent its negative externalities, so I merely suggested that the price of a hamburger or cigarette should comprehensively represent their negative externalities as well.

One could never hope to specifically tax the firearm which would be used in a crime, just as one could never hope to specifically tax the cheeseburger which will push a person towards obesity.

Now, I'm trying very hard for us to have a civilized debate, but if you cannot accept the responsibilities that come with a propoer debate then there is no need for us to discuss anything further.

Scucca

There is no debate here. You're merely trying to hide from your drastic errors. You started with a polluted understanding of externalities. You've since moved on to a ridiculous stance on empirical evidence. You haven't appreciated, for example, that raw data cannot be used to test hypothesis. At best, you have spurious conclusion. Whilst such error is common amongst the gun lobby (e.g. use of time trends in British gun crime to make the ludicrous claim that the handgun ban was behind it), I expect more from you. I've also said I'll discuss in detail the data sources, empirical methodology and econometric testing. However, since you are utterly clueless about the empirical process, that debate won't be with the likes of you.

I'm always willing to detail the data sources, empirical methodology and econometric testing. Do you want to start the ball rolling and refer to the robustness tests that you expect in such studies?

Again, you've simply made silly errors. You aren't going to achieve debate because of capability problem.

First, you'd be making conclusion before empirical knowledge. More laziness? If gun ownership reduced crime (as suggested by folk that focus on particular the impact of self-defence), it is quite perceivable that there could be a positive life expectancy effect. Second, the paper's importance is in measuring the life expectancy effect. For example, we'd have to examine whether they are statistically significant. They obviously are, given the firearm effect is estimated to be larger than the impact of all colon and prostate cancers . Third, the paper highlights the difficulties in assessing the magnitude of the overall negative externalities. Traditionally, studies have focused on medical treatment costs. Such studies will underestimate the costs as they ignore issues such as reduced/eliminated productivity of the victims and the additional costs for the criminal justice system. Any literature review should include different approaches in order to try and eliminate this underestimation

How bleedin annoying! I've already educated you how woeful your attempts are. First, you're clueless about the nature of marginalism. Second, you're clueless about the distinction between durable and non-durable goods.

The attempt to internalise externalities, via a Pigovian tax, must refer to the distinction between private and social costs “per unit”. Consider, for example, the fuel tax. The overall externalities from pollution are of course substantial. To ensure the motorist takes into account these costs they should face a higher price. However, once we look at tax per gallon, we don't have this “astronomical” ridiculousness you have woefully whinged about. As an example, consider the following paper

Tax per hamburger would be small, given externality per hamburger is small. It is only through substantial consumption that the significant costs are displayed. However, through that substantial consumption the revenue from the Pigovian tax would also be substantial. Internalisation of the externality!

It bores me that you are reducing this debate to such basic analysis. Can't you do some thinking before typing?

Trying to compare a hamburger with a gun remains one of your more inane attempts. I've already given the estimated consequence of the externality from gun ownership.


Nope. That would be untrue. You've come out with a double whammy of error: displaying a zero understanding of externalities and the nature of empirical analysis. At best, you're wasting my time. At the moment I'm the teacher trying to teach that 2 plus 2 does not equal 5. Such low level education is not entertaining. Only type these long posts if you are typing 'with' knowledge. Its the decent thing to do!

aegyptos

Scucca is a troll. Surely you must see that by now. Why do you people continue to engage him?