|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total) |
| DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (4 members, 551 visitors)
|
Mikee | |
Total: 866,808 Year: 21,844/19,786 Month: 407/1,834 Week: 407/315 Day: 3/82 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 2112 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Before I begin this post I wanted to be sure I cleared up a misconception that you, Legend, seem to have about the debate process.
It is up to you, Legend, to provide the evidence to support your assertions, not ours. As in this statement here:
If you can’t provide the “many reasons” then your not debating, you’re just obfuscating. It is not my job to make up for your apparent intellectual lapses. Your continued strategy to obfuscate, deny, distort, dissemble, and evade is transparent and frankly tiresome. I thought I would be speaking with an adult, not having to hold your hand like a child through this whole process. Why you lack the intestinal fortitude to admit that the evidence does not support your claims is beyond me. To wit:
and
Both assertions have been shown to be false, most recently by RAZD, who presented you with evidence that armed deterrence is not a fundamental truth. Your conclusion is further shown to be false, when you look at the statistics. If armed deterrence, as a fundamental principle, is responsible for the lower U.S. burglary rate then that rate should have been lower for the U.S. at the very least from 1946 [when self-defense was not considered an acceptable reason in the U.K. to have a gun] and on. Since the statistics show that for a period of time, even when the U.K. had much stricter gun laws than the U.S., the burglary rate for the U.S. was HIGHER (by double the amount), your argument has been shown to be false. From here
Now, if you want to delve into the reasons for this shift, you’re welcome to it. It isn’t because of gun control laws. (hint: it might be due to a shift in incarceration rates and prosecution rates within both the U.S. and U.K.) Again with the debunking of this assertion of yours.
You conveniently overlook the fact that in the BCS report on gun crime they state that:
From your later reply:
[Bolded to better show where your point fell apart]. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad that you failed to grasp the contrast I was making. The best I could manage at this point would be a weak chuckle, and a sad shake of my head. The fact that you just happily (might I even say with Gusto!) tore a wide, gaping, cornhole through your own argument, goes to show how little thought you put into your replies. Look. You continue to make the argument that gun laws do NOT decrease gun crime, and yet when presented with facts that show a decrease in gun crime even AFTER more strict gun laws are enacted, you come up with some lame reply like that? You’re wrong. It’s ok. We can move past that. We could posit some ideas and explore why Scotland and England/Wales would have such differing rates of gun crime? Or not. And perhaps, finally, we have this bit of information regarding gun crime reporting in the U.K. From the BCS Survey you will note, that a large percentage of gun crimes involve the use of IMITATION weapons. Because criminals can not get ‘real’ firearms, due to the gun laws, they have to resort to fake ones or imitation ones. That is one reason deaths and injuries due to firearms are lower in the U.K. versus the U.S. by a significant degree.
So, one reason why gun crime rates have shown a statistical increase is that imitation guns are being used preferentially, because criminals are unable to get a hold of ‘real’ guns. Which, unremarkably, has kept deaths due to firearms to the low level that U.K. citizens seem to prefer. Seems like a pretty substantial reason to have gun control laws to me. Anyways, we move on…
The only ‘evidence’ you have shown, is a book that afaik, you haven’t even read. You give no relevant passages and pages numbers, just your assertion that that is what the book states. When I find a quote from a book selling website that gives an overview of the book, you ignore it and conveniently continue with your assertion. Until you can back up this statement with evidence, its baseless. By the way, this is what the overview states is the conclusion of the authors of the book:
They conclude that burglars RARELY consider the risk or threat of sanctions. And we continue…
If you don’t think the difference between 14 and 9,369 murders by firearms is due to the difference in gun laws between the U.K and U.S, then I would have to respond with a reply that one of our Congressman gave recently to a ‘nutter’ comparing Obama to Hitler: “What planet are you from?” I suppose I’ll continue…
If you want to go pick up your toys and complain to your momma that the big kids aren’t playing fair, then feel free to leave, just don’t let the door hit you in the arse. Obviously the intellectual gymnastics you would have to perform to figure this out is above and beyond your grade level. I was being generous in expecting that you could grasp a simple concept, but again I’m forced to reassess that assumption. I’ll try to make it easier for you to understand.
in response to:
The U.K has speed limits, yes? Right. Speed laws = Gun laws. Or how about, Drivers license = gun license. If you weren’t so ideologically wedded to your argument, you’d probably notice that gun control laws in England already limit guns WITHOUT criminalizing the possession of those guns allowed under the law. Which leads me to question, what kind of screwed up system of gun control laws would require firearms be licensed, yet criminalize their possession? Can you imagine the conversation that would take place in such a system? Hmmmm…let’s imagine a hypothetical conversation held at a local police station: “You need to license those shotguns you have in your possession. Give me a good reason why you should have them, and I’ll give you a license to possess it. When your through with that form, in triplicate mind you, I’ll need to then kindly dispossess you of your firearms, which then you’ll need to verify, in triplicate and have witnessed. The license I’ll let you keep as a memento of this fabulous deal.”
It would be more accurate to state that buy-back programs have been shown to have mixed success. While amnesties are not the ‘be all and end all’ of gun control legislation, they likely have a positive impact on the proliferation of guns and resultant gun crime. Australia’s buy-back program, instituted in 1997 had an inconclusive impact on homicides commited with firearms, though it is notable that such homicides are still declining even after the buy-back program. They have been declining since the early 1980’s. From the AIC
We could look at other States, which have instituted buy-back programs, such as Brazil
So, it would be false for you to claim that gun amnesty laws do not work. This took me longer to write up than I wished but with work I have a limited time to do the research necessary. Part two should be coming up soon, hopefully later today as it is almost complete. Thank you for your patience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 2112 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Not to belabor this point, but this is due in a large part by the increase in the use of imitation weapons by criminals. Another issue is the fact that firearm related homicides are so significantly lower than in the U.S., I would think that in the interest of that alone, I wouldn’t want to increase the amount of ‘real’ guns. US DoJ
Another point is that while gun crime had increased it appears to have leveled off and while not statistically significant, 2008 saw a 4% decline in gun crime. Additionally, we see that gun crime has been decreasing in Scotland which has similar levels of gun regulation. If your premise is that gun regulation has no effect and even a detrimental effect (as per your posts) on gun crime then you need to explain why you don’t include Scotland in your evidence. That is where cherry-picking comes into play. And finally, it has been documented that this disparity between the U.S. and the U.K. for crime rates was reversed not but 25 years ago, or so. US DoJ
Your argument that the rate of burglaries (among other crimes) is higher in England than the U.S. is because burglars fear gun wielding homeowners is false. If that premise was correct then you would need to explain why the U.S. burglary rate was double the U.K. rate in 1981. It isn’t just burglaries that were higher in the U.S., but robberies and assault among other crimes. US DoJ
While, there may certainly be other reasons for this reverse in the rates between these two countries, one argument that has been put forth is that their have been changes in crime reporting, catching of criminals, and incarceration rates. US DoJ
Now we get to the semantic games.
Your claim was that gun laws would allow only criminals to have guns…
…and the higher burglary rate in the U.K., versus the U.S., was due to the strict gun control laws of the U.K. On a side note you claimed that:
which is hyperbolic. It’s just plainly false! So when I state
I don’t think I am misstating your position.
Your position is that the higher rate of burglaries in the U.K. versus the U.S. is due to the stricter gun laws, so when I point out that Scotland, which has the same or very similar gun laws, has been decreasing, that clearly falsifies your premise. It is not MY job to find out WHY there might be a decrease. If I find evidence that YOUR hypothesis is false, then it is up to YOU to update it, throw it out, or tell me WHY my evidence is irrelevant or wrong. Hand waving away the evidence is just you being lazy, to put it mildly. Finally, according to the 2008/2009 BCS survey gun violence has decreased (and as I recall the 2007 report showed a decrease from 2006)
Here is what the BCS says about ‘employment’ and it’s impact on crime. (The level of ‘deprivation’ of geographic areas impact the risk of victim-hood)
Just to be clear here….
If you’re choosing these two countries because YOU don’t have the time or resources to do the background research on other ones, then you are in effect, cherry-picking the data. Give me a break! You want to cry now that you don’t have time to look at data that might disagree with your premise because you don’t have the time?! What a crock of shit. Sounds to me like you’re just getting all wobbly and whiney.
To the first point. See my previous reply to you as well as the top of this post. The second part is just drivel, twaddle, childish, silly. This isn’t a race. If you need more time to review any points or make your argument, feel free to take what time you need. In the case that you weren’t feeling rushed to answer, your dismissal of mine and other’s pertinent points makes you look childish and shows the weakness of your position. I’ll stop by and see if you bring something substantial and supportive to your argument, but until then I won’t hold my breath.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019