Paul Blackman writes:

I’m not sure Kates actually prevents anyone from learning anything. He
presents something with a clear bias, but he no more prevents anything
than does Tim’s commentary.

Kates claims that he is trying “to place Malcolm’s contribution in the
context of extant social scientific and historical evidence on that
question.” He does no such thing. He doesn’t even mention the
existence of any pro-control scholars and he quotes selectively from
the pro-gun scholars. Note also that he attempts to pass himself as
being on the middle ground by describing himself as “A member of both
Handgun Control Inc. and the National Rifle Association, he has been
bitterly criticized by both.”

While arguably Cook and Ludwig are competent scholars whose works might
well be addressed,

Then my point stands.

Regarding the foreign comparisons, it’s my understanding that Kates was
citing a bunch of European countries, and Tim to some extent attempts to
refute the statement with regard to one of them.

In footnote 197 of the TLR paper Kates specifically claims that
the homicide figures for Scotland, England and Israel do not count
political homicides. He does not offer the slightest scrap of
evidence in support of his claim. For Scotland at least I have proven
the claim false.

For the one, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the issue could become
how one defines political killing/assassination, and whether one counts
incidents or bodies.

The homicide rate is defined by counting bodies. It doesn’t matter
how one defines political killing/assassination since they are
included in the homicide figures that Kates cites.