Summations Only

The topic is whether gun control can reduce homicide. The particular subtopic that was in reference to was whether Australia's U-shaped homicide rate could be ascribed to Delayed Blast Gun Control or whether it simply reflected a worldwide trend (which it does.)So, yes, about the topic. If you can't follow the context, Theodoric, please leave the conversation. Otherwise stop complaining that my evidence doesn't support different arguments than it was meant to support. That's a form of misrepresentation.

Wrong.
Try again.

I'm extremely sceptical about all claims made that contradict personal experience, but I am totally open to having my mind changed by the facts.For example, I agree that 60% occupied burgalry figure just feels wrong - I don't think even American criminals are that stupid. (Don't you guys regulate the claims made in adverts?).So I kept searching and I have now found a paper from the US DoJ that puts the number at 28%. So now UK burglars only have to burgle 112% of homes when occupied.A problem is that in the US if a burglary of an occupied house resulted in violence it wasn't collated as a burglary, it was called an assault, so I'm betting that whatever numbers have come up with a factor of four difference between us is not comparing like with like.http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txtBtw - 12% of homes burgled while someone was home faced a burglar with a gun.

The topic is called "Gun Control Again", and gun control has repeatedly been suggested to be responsible for an overall decrease in Australia's homicide rate. Again, if you're not prepared to stay on top of the conversation, please withdraw from it.

Well, the FTC is supposed to do that, but they don't have the manpower to scour the internet. You have to rely on your own skepticism, not allow the government to think on your behalf. Indeed, truly terrifying. I don't blame anyone who decides they'd prefer themselves to be armed in such a situation. Why do you say that? Do you believe that the British statistics wouldn't classify a home invasion assault as an assault?

That's the problem. Your arguing the wrong topic. Are you being ironic again?

.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Am I? The answer the question you've so studiously ignored - what's the social interest in merely shifting homicides from one form to another, or in actually increasing them as we do so? And if that's not the topic, why are so many people trying to convince me that Australia's gun control reduced the homicide rate? Why did Tangle spend all that time asking me if I'd rather have a lower rate of homicides or burglaries, as determined by whether we enact gun control?Are you paying any attention at all, Theo? It doesn't look like it. 500 posts in and you still have no idea what's going on.

We don't debate links.If you got something to say, say it.If not don't post.

Cause according to your source it did.ABE
Still resorting to attacking the poster I see.
Classic frogEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

So you have the chicken and you have the egg. This is why our police are not armed - it stops, or at least slows, the escallation. An assault during a burglary would be charged as an aggravated burglary, not an assault - a much more serious offence - starting point 10 years.http://www.cps.gov.uk/...ntencing_manual/aggravated_burgleryUnless it ended in murder or rape of course.

I think you need to eat more fiber. I was trying to post a picture that appeared on my facebook page that a friend had posted. It didn't know how to do it and tried copying the link and hoping the picture would show up. It didn't work. I then tried to delete the entire post and I guess I don't know how to do that. I can count on mr constipated everytime though to raise a fuss.

Try using preview buttons.No need to be rude.

You've quoted me out of context and evaded the question yet again. Now you're adding false accusations of personal attacks.But it does seem, at last, that you're admitting that it actually was the topic.

Wrong.
Try again.