Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
There is no mention of Lee and/or Suardi or their work in the first link and the second makes some vague rebuttal that there may have been a lag between the implementation and the effect.
However it does make this comment you obviously overlooked:
It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.
Once again you try to bluster or bluff your way through an argument you can't validate.
|
Thank you for actually reading a link.
The first link I posted does not mention Lee and Suardi but it directly rebuts points made in the Lee and Suardi paper. The second article actually critiques Lee and Suardi more deeply than you indicate. The second article, in nice academic prose, essentially calls Lee and Suardi fools. Thus both articles I posted refute Lee and Suardi.
But you are right - the Harvard article I posted says that the Aussie experience is not fully replicable in the USA. I hinted at this in a post above. But the article does point to positive gains from the Aussie experience which we Americans can learn from and, if not "fully" replicate, still enact to our betterment.
I'm not trying to "bluff" through anything here. I have provided sound research and a logical argument which can be used to help us find our way out of our current gun regulations, which clearly are not working.