Gun Control is ridiculous

Jaggy Bunnet said:
"What do you think would have happened if Hamilton DID NOT have a gun?"

I think it is highly unlikely he could have killed the number of people he did before they escaped and/or he was overpowered. His spree is thought to have lasted 3-4 minutes. It is unrealistic to suggest he could kill a child every 15 seconds without a gun.
Click to expand...

Perhaps an example of what he could have done sans guns is the attack four months after Dunblane at St. Luke's primary school, where a machete wielding maniac injured 3 children and 4 adults, with no fatalities.
 
Austria has a murder rate comparable to UK and guns per capita only little bit lower than US. So the gun-turns-owner-into-killer-virus is not common in my country.
An example how banning guns work in real live:
Austria has imported about 50,000 pump action shot-guns and then politicians decided these are evil guns so they banned them.
About 2000 were returned to police or registered (there was a short time period were owners of hand gun licenses could register a pump gun).
The remaining 48,000 are now illegal owned and are no problem for society.
Semi-automatic shot guns are still legal and sold.
On the black market you can buy AK-47 from ex-yugoslavia and ex-DDR NVA, silcenced chech Scorpion sub-machine guns and many other forbidden military guns.
(Edited for typos)
 
Last edited:
shanek said:
It's comments like this which clearly shows why gun control people shouldn't be taken seriously. Anyone who thinks can see the relevance here.
Click to expand...
Luchog claimed that since the hand gun ban in the uk, fire arm offences had tripled and the murder rate was moderately lower.

I replied with statistics that showed the gun murder rate had not noticeably increased and pointed out that the difference between gun murder rates in the USA and UK was not moderate.

I was then criticised for ignoring offences not involving a gun.

I merely pointed out that my stats did exactly what they said, they showed gun murder rates are not moderately lower in the UK they are significantly lower. I also pointed out that this was a tiny piece of the jigsaw.

You think that this demonstrates why I shouldn’t be taken seriously. Fair enough you are entitled to your opinion, I suspect however your emotions are affecting your rationality.
 
shanek said:
How about, oh, ANYTHING??? Anything other than just X>Y, therefore guns are bad...
Click to expand...

We could regress Gun ownership against Gun related crime or deaths but I suspect that if you included countries like Switzerland R^2 might be lower than 0.70.

How about doing a matrix plot for lots of variables and see what links up?

Incidentally, guns are bad.
 
Lothian said:
I was then criticised for ignoring offences not involving a gun.
Click to expand...

And rightfully so. The fact that you can't even see why just shows how closed you are to this. You likened including the non-firearms offenses to including car accidents, which is laughable.
 
William Rea said:
We could regress Gun ownership against Gun related crime or deaths but I suspect that if you included countries like Switzerland R^2 might be lower than 0.70.

How about doing a matrix plot for lots of variables and see what links up?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one making the claim. They use the rate of crimes committed with firearms as the response variable and firearm ownership as the only predictor variable. Are you really trying to claim that's valid?

Incidentally, guns are bad.
Click to expand...

Guns are things. They are neither good nor bad.
 
shanek said:
I'm not the one making the claim. They use the rate of crimes committed with firearms as the response variable and firearm ownership as the only predictor variable.

Are you really trying to claim that's valid?

Guns are things. They are neither good nor bad.
Click to expand...

Who are "They"?

No quite the opposite in fact. As I said, if you included countries such as Switzerland in the model it might not prove correlation because they have high gun ownership and low crime. There is clearly an interaction of variables in the model.

I suggested a matrix plot of lots of variables to see if there was one other single variable. Maybe we should look for the probability of an interaction of gun ownership levels, culture and standard of living?
 
Last edited:
shanek said:
I'm not the one making the claim. They use the rate of crimes committed with firearms as the response variable and firearm ownership as the only predictor variable. Are you really trying to claim that's valid?
Guns are things. They are neither good nor bad.
Click to expand...

Guns are inanimate but they have an inherent purpose which is to injure or kill living things. Therefore they are bad.
 
shanek said:
And rightfully so. The fact that you can't even see why just shows how closed you are to this. You likened including the non-firearms offenses to including car accidents, which is laughable.
Click to expand...
I am closed ! Thank you Mr pot.


I did not hide the stats I reported. The hand gun ban has had no effect on the number of gun murders. I made no comment on this, I merely reported the statistics. If I had drawn any conclusion I would accept your criticism. If you think the stats are irrelevant or wrong then criticise them. If you think the conclusions drawn from facts are wrong criticise those conclusions. To criticise a person for merely quoting statistics is out of order, and does you no credit.
 
Lothian said:
I am closed ! Thank you Mr pot.


I did not hide the stats I reported. The hand gun ban has had no effect on the number of gun murders. I made no comment on this, I merely reported the statistics. If I had drawn any conclusion I would accept your criticism. If you think the stats are irrelevant or wrong then criticise them. If you think the conclusions drawn from facts are wrong criticise those conclusions. To criticise a person for merely quoting statistics is out of order, and does you no credit.
Click to expand...

I think the criticism is that while the claim referred to the murder rate, your stats were on the gun murder rate, not the overall murder rate. As one of the arguments is that ownership of guns reduces other crime, including non-gun murder, it would appear reasonable to look at the overall murder rate, not just the gun murder rate.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I think the criticism is that while the claim referred to the murder rate, your stats were on the gun murder rate, not the overall murder rate. As one of the arguments is that ownership of guns reduces other crime, including non-gun murder, it would appear reasonable to look at the overall murder rate, not just the gun murder rate.
Click to expand...

I thought it was mainly proponents of less gun control in this thread that have been making the claim that less gun control (increased public ownership of accessible guns being assumed) results in less crime? That's why for example they've been quoting some statistics that apparently demonstrate how many times people have claimed they have had to use a gun in self-defence or to stop a crime happening?
 
The Painter said:
If they are "bad" why do the police carry them?
Click to expand...

Lesser of two evils (not saying this is the answer just giving a possible explanation). And in the UK the police are still thankfully not regularly armed (albeit there are more and more police armed and armed police response units).
 
luchog said:
I like how you avoided the non-firearm-related murder rate, as well as the overall violent crime rate. Makes it almost look like you had a valid point.
Click to expand...

Addressing the topic under discussion? Scandalous behaviour.

Yjacket said:
Ah no, I do not need to understand your argument before I answer.
Click to expand...

A solid basis for a mature discussion.

Yjacket said:
You have no argument because you used as a source a document that is incorrect. There is no assumption that I am correct because your source listed a reference for the information and I provided you a link to that reference as well as quoting the reference. Since it is so easy to demonstrate that your source is incorrect, very possibly with intent, that invalidates anything that source has to say.
Click to expand...

I said I would accept your figures. I asked how, taking your figures, my argument is affected. You declined to answer and instead drowned the issue in waffle.

Yjacket said:
Of that 5285 in the US how many are in the 15 to 19 years of age category and were killed as a result of drug and gang activity?
Click to expand...

I don't know, and at this juncture it's irrelevant. Like shanek you flat out refuse to discuss the base figures and instead ask for more detailed stats to be presented. 5285 kids killed by guns every year in the US, compared to 19 in the UK and zero in Japan. You talk of drugs and gangs, shanek bangs on (no pun intended) about regression analysis.

Do you really need in-depth stats to see that there's something seriously wrong here?

If you admit there's something amiss, but deny gun control is part of the answer, then please state what solution you propose.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I think the criticism is that while the claim referred to the murder rate, your stats were on the gun murder rate, not the overall murder rate. As one of the arguments is that ownership of guns reduces other crime, including non-gun murder, it would appear reasonable to look at the overall murder rate, not just the gun murder rate.
Click to expand...
I know what Shanek is saying. However in deciding whether the UK is a better place before or after the hand gun ban the overall crime rate does not give the full picture either. Indeed Shanek has admitted in post 666 that the overall crime rate changes have little to do with gun control.

The stats and report I linked were, as I admitted, selective. I did not claim them to represent the full picture. I was quite clear in describing what they were and how they did not support Luchog’s original claims
You clearly don't know much about your own country, then, since the UK (and Australia) has a higher rate of violent crime, including violent crime involving firearms, than the US does.
Since handgun ban in... '97 I believe it was, firearm-related violence has almost tripled in the UK.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
Who are "They"?
Click to expand...

Many people in this thread. Baron for one. I've been trying to get him to respond to this criticism of his statistics for pages now.

I suggested a matrix plot of lots of variables to see if there was one other single variable. Maybe we should look for the probability of an interaction of gun ownership levels, culture and standard of living?
Click to expand...

It should especially include black market activities like the drug trade, which accounts for a lot of crime and gun violence in this country.
 
Skibum said:
See, there you go again, playing your games. If you want me to answer a specific question ask it. Don't ask for my thoughts on what I would do, then try to extrapolate them to a larger group.
I haven't done any proper studies of the general population to give you a decent answer.
Click to expand...

I thought so.

Skibum said:
Oh really? I'm stunned at your total lack of logical thought.
Click to expand...

How is that illogical?

Don't just dogmatically declare that This Is So.

Explain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom