Summations Only

And firearms are extremely durable. They're an extremely durable class of goods. For instance, firearms from the Revolutionary war can still be fired. I've not made any claims whatsoever about the durability of Revolutionary firearms. None at all.

You mean like "we banned guns, and then murders were lower after that"?

Who cares, though? What good is it to reduce one category of deaths at the expense of a greater increase in others? Again, gratz on the guns or whatever, but if more people were murdered in aggregate, what the fuck was it worth? I don't think society has a vested interest in shifting how people are murdered. Can you explain why you think it does?

Who do I attribute it to? Be specific.

Which kids? I don't follow; you're clearly trying to evade the question. Answer it, instead: if we reduce gun deaths, but increase stabbing deaths by more, why is that a good thing? Shouldn't the goal be less homicides without regard to how they're committed? They were, though: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.htmlIt's funny how you link without quoting or showing, describing it one way; when I actually go there and look, the truth is the opposite. Please, when you discuss with me, remember that misrepresenting your sources violates the forum guidelines.

Oh, I see - so when you said that I attributed this to "someone", you were saying something you knew not to be true. There's a name for what that's called, but I don't seem to be allowed to tell you what it is. Perhaps you can use your imagination.

Well, no. That's not my hypothesis, it was Rahvin's:

quote:

---

A criminal has no way of knowing whether a given home contains a gun owner or not; most home invaders try to commit their crimes while the victims are away, so as to avoid the police or any form of confrontation. For the remainder...the possibility of a homeowner with a gun being present simply escalates the threat.

---

You've jumped into a conversation I've been having with him. I've already done so. Again, Tangle, you can't maintain a studied ignorance of my sources and then claim that I've not provided any. I'm not required to repeat myself to every newcomer. If this is a conversation you want to be a part of, it's your responsibility to get caught up.

I don't understand what you're talking about, but it strikes me that if the only complaint you have about my numbers is that they're poorly formatted, you've conceded my major points.

But it is the support. You can't claim that my support isn't supported, that makes no sense.

Yeah, which ones. There's a context for my remarks, here, and it didn't involve children, so unspecified "kids" are a non sequitur I don't understand. Since I wasn't ever talking about fucking children, I'm just wondering which kids Panda wants to fuck. He'll have to tell me; fucking children isn't my thing. Whatever works for him, though.

If you concentrate only on the part that goes down, years after the gun ban went into effect, then you're just cherry-picking. I'm prepared to accept that the eventual decline in crime is associated with Australia's gun ban, but the trend is U-shaped, the same U-shaped curve seen in every OECD country over the same period: including those that didn't pass much in the way of gun control.So why, Rahvin, should I believe that Australia's eventual small decrease in the homicide rate was solely the result of a gun law passed almost a decade earlier, and not just Australia following the same trend everyone else followed?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reduce image size.

This "source" is a website that sells home security systems. It's not the FBI.

Find your own source. But make sure you can tell the difference between a website hawking security systems and the FBI.

Here in the US, the government keeps track of crime via the Bureau of Justice Statistics. While I'm sure the FBI keeps track of crime to some extent, there's no such thing as "FBI Crime Statistics."But once again, I'm flabbergasted at the difference in skepticism you're showing, here. Anything I say is subject to intense doubt and challenge, but a website produces a claim from whole cloth that works to your advantage, and you adopt it without question. They're not meant to tell you anything about guns, and I never said they were about guns. They were about homicides. Is there some reason that wasn't clear in your post? I told you precisely what claim they were produced to support. That they don't support another claim, which I didn't make, is irrelevant. Oh, no doubt. But in all types of assaults - not just gun assaults.

My recollection, looking at this two days ago, was that the US had an occupied burglaries rate of about 10%, while in the UK it was 40%.But that's just from memory, so I can't stand on those exact figures. Regardless, yes, my position is that the UK has a much higher rate of occupied burglary/home invasion than the US.