>Alas, if purity of thought is more important than pragmatism then
>carry on with the gun ownership->violent crime rhetoric.
>
>
>
>
I share Justin's bewilderment about this thread: asking valid
sociological questions about possible causal relationships does not
entail any political position about the legality or illegality of gun
ownership. Matt and Jordan seems to assume that anyone who even raises
the question of some causal impact of gun ownership on homicide rates is
advocating more stringent gun control. It doesn't necessary follow;
like Justin, I think it's plausible that high rates of gun ownership
increase the rate of violent crime in our society, and I have no
interest in overturning or diluting the second amendment. Contra Matt's
comments above, I'd say "purity of thought" in this thread is
exemplified by Matt and Jordan: instead of honestly and fairly assessing
the relevant data, they're jumping to the conclusion that any scientific
hypotheses about gun availability and violent crime are driven by a
rabidly anti-gun political position, and thus should be rejected.
(Classic ad hominem argument!)
Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that the principles of scientific investigation should trump political advantage. --Regardless of how many gun owners there are and how "pragmatic" it is to pander to them to win elections, it is crucial that social scientists develop and test meaningful hypotheses about the social world. This includes hypotheses about politically sensitive topics such as gun ownership.
Miles