So, getting back to my original question; have you viewed the debate?
And as I originally said, it doesn't matter. By definintion, the IQsquared debates are not particularly rigorous sources of information, as they are designed to persuade, not inform. The data is not analyzed nor is it even discussed much outside of the findings. It is interesting that you chose to make a number of claims that I had not watched the debate without finding out the facts first. FWIW, not only have I seen the debate, I also have the written transcript of it. It's OK if you want bumper sticker info, but outside of that there isn't much.
Which is why I said "almost." Some libraries are not on the inter-library loan system by their own choosing, in which case they can and often do charge a small fee for getting material for the reader. Some libraries are private in nature. But either way anybody in the country that is not somehow legally restricted from getting this stuff can get any book or journal article in common circulation. It is not at all difficult.
Yes it is and so I suggest that anyone who is serious about the subject watch the debate I posted.
Or they can actually get the information itself from the research itself, which will give a much better perspective of the issue. Again, serious researchers don't base findings based on what someone said on a debate posted on YouTube.
First this is not research but a brief commentary about research that someone else did.
Much like the "information" you posted in another thread about Kleck and tried to defend. Good to see that you have recognized the problem with that approach.
He then goes on to make some strange comments about how much it costs law enforcement to have CCW and it is easier to enforce a law where no carry is permitted versus one where some are licensed. That statement makes no sense and he offers no explanation.
Which is why, as I said, debates like that don't matter. The claims are not reviewed, the data is not there, there is no verification process, etc.
After you have viewed the link I provided I would be happy to discuss it more.
Nothing to discuss except that the material you are using isn't worth much for learning about the subject. That is the point I've been making, that Spy has made, that Peetza has made. These are complicated issues, and if one wants to have a serious discussion about them one might want to actually learn something about the research that has been done and the material in the field.
ETA: This is one of those reasons why one should actually get the material and look at it.
However, during the debate I posted Donohue, who is participating, keeps bringing up some panel or board that he claimed refuted Lott's work. Kleck and Lott descend on him with swiftness and adroitly refute and rebuff his claim and even the moderator is forced to agree with Lott and Kleck that the board or group really did a "Ponitus Pilate" and washed their hands concerning a conclusion. Donohue is speechless. But I don't want to ruin it for you.
Actually what happens is that Donahue says "They (the panel) concluded that the data does not support the proposition that we’re debating today which is that guns reduce crime." And after a comment from Kleck, "No, actually what that report persistently said was, we don’t have strong enough evidence to
draw firm conclusions about virtually every issue they addressed, so, that was more of a no-decision decision than it was reaching the opposite conclusion, they did not reach the conclusion that making it easy to get a carry permit increases crime. They did not conclude that John Lott was wrong, and basically, you know, you learn nothing from what that particular panel said." Donvan, the moderator, then says, "I’ve read the same report and I have to say, Gary, that I read it the same way, actually, it was a bit of a Pontius Pilate moment that didn’t know who was right or who was wrong." In other words, the moderator agrees with Donahue's statment about the panel, that the panel did not find any evidence that guns reduced crime. Kleck even acknowledges that by saying, "Yeah, you kind of read the thing and you ask was this trip really necessary." Everybody basically agrees with Donahue, who's entire comment, when put together without the interruptions, is as follows: All the tests that John do show that crime gets better. But, again, this is exactly what the National Academy of Science looked at. And, they concluded the opposite, that the data did not support the proposition that we’re debating today which is that guns reduce crime.