Deltoid

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.