Another Ex. of less guns = more crime

[spacemanspiff]

i think wild's point is that the debate of gun control should be waged without the use of statistics on either side. there are more facets to the argument than simply 'a gun in every home and on every hip = criminal and crime free utopia'.

 

[spacemanspiff]

hmmm.....lets see...

why, would anchorage have a similar crime rate to miami? what is it about anchorage that makes us like miami? hmmmm, it must be from all the old people, alaska has all kinds of old people! and a place like, honolulu, then, must have far less old people, because their crime rate is like 1/3 what ours or miami's is.

therefore, MORE old people = MORE crimes. numbers dont lie!

wait, how can we tie guns in there? hmmm, alaska has no gun control laws, and lots of people carry. florida has no-retreat laws, and lots of people carry there. makes sense to me!

edit - next on As the Gunowners Spin, our hero will insist that apples are indeed equal to oranges! brilliant!

 

[Wildalaska]

I don't know who supplies the FBI their numbers but who ever it is, is way off.

Lets see according to the report in 2004 we had 29 murders, 05 we increased to 30

Nope I''ll help.... reread your post...you do know what a fallacy is right

Wild, if you cannot handle the fact of individual responsibility for actions you are in the wrong business. A firearm is not more dangerous than a car or a few pounds of chemicals, it is people who misuse them who are responsible for the damage they cause.

Where have I stated that I cannot handle indvidual responsibility

The point of this thread was that removing guns from the hands of people who are willing to obey the law leaves guns only in the hands of criminals, while the people who obeyed the law are left defenseless.

No the point of this thread is that you argued More Guns=less crime. Are you still making that simplistic argument? If so, then you have to agree that equally, Less Guns=less crime or More Guns=more crime because they are all statistically valid argument.

Quotes and statistics from Lott or Brady, or the FBI for that matter, do not prove anything

Then why are you arguing that they do?

WildithoughtthisthreadwasaboutstatisticsiemoregunsequalslesscrimeAlaska

 

[Handy]

The point of this thread was that removing guns from the hands of people who are willing to obey the law leaves guns only in the hands of criminals, while the people who obeyed the law are left defenseless. If you can't use common sense, not statistics, to understand why this is true I cannot help you.

No, the point of this thread was that there was statistical evidence to "prove" that gun control doesn't work. Then you attacked Wild for demonstrating that the proof part is a logical falacy.

Then you continue on your illogical path by making an incredibly specious argument that Wild, because he doesn't agree with your suspicious use of statistics, is a proponent of gun control. Would you care to prove that point?



Weak arguments don't improve just because they defend a just cause. And a just cause defended poorly is a betrayal.

In other words, using the information offered in this thread to make a logical argument against gun control just puts the you in a position of appearing deceitful, foolish or both. The statistics are, at best, inconclusive and therefore immaterial. The sky does not turn green because Wayne LaPierre said so.

 

[44 AMP]

pulling the chain

Wild, you just love pulling some people chain, don't you. Nice one. I believe I see your point, but you sure SEEMED to gore some people's sacred cow.

Yes, there is a lot more to it than the number of legal guns in peoples hands. And "figures lie and liars figure". I think it is just that after so many years of being pounded with figures aimed against us, when we have some for us, many people tend to get a little short sighted. And often short tempered.

 

[Wildalaska]

Wild, you just love pulling some people chain, don't you. Nice one. I believe I see your point, but you sure SEEMED to gore some people's sacred cow.

its not chain pulling or goring...simply insisting that we provide the same intellectual honesty we DEMAND from them

WildpompouspedantAlaska

 

[44 AMP]

point taken

 

[Trapp]

Frankly, I don't care about statistics,never have. Numbers, as stated by Wild, are an invalid arguement. Everyone knows you can change numbers to say what you want.

Why don't we fight for our rights........get this......



Because the Constitution says so.......?

It's about time someone spoke up with some logic....

 

[jcims]

wild, can you please stop posting in latin, i was home schooled, you ad hoc ergonomical proctol hoc hummina hummina hummina.

I had to look it up.

'post hoc ergo propter hoc' translates to 'after this, therefore because of this', e.g. 'Bob must be the one that needs the shower...it didn't start stinking in here until after he showed up!'

 

[Springfield XD40 Man]

So if John Lott's book " More Guns, Less Crime" is not credible, and Wayne LaPierre's two book's are not credible, "Guns, Crime, and Freedom" and "Guns, Terrorism, and Freedom", what is? Surely you have to say that all the crap that Sarah Brady puts out is not credible?? Valid arguments are based on statistics and fact, not emotion, hype, and hysteria = the gun control movement, in my opinion. Seems to me that many of the so called facts put out by the brady bunch have been discredited, while those from Lott and LaPierre have gained credibility. John Lott took a ton of heat for his book and his research from the media and the sheeple crowd, however he steadfastly stuck to his research and even wrote a second edition of his book. I for one put a lot of faith in his work, much more so than the brady bunch.

Taking statistics from a few select cities concerning guns and crime hardly proves a point in my book. The cities which you cite as gun ownership having no effect on crime, there are other's that have seen crime drop as lawful gun ownership increases. Its widely known and reported that the four U.S cities with the highest homicide rate, Detroit, Chicago, D.C, and NYC, also have the most restrictive gun laws. I know this is only one factor in the crime rate, but their is a correlation.

Here is a direct quote from John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime". " Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%" These percentages mean approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented. You argue that statistics such as these are not credible, give a good reason as to why??

 

[Trapp]

Seems to me that many of the so called facts put out by the brady bunch have been discredited, while those from Lott and LaPierre have gained credibility.

Not if you were on the other side.....It would be the opposite.

Think about it.....

I dont see any legitimate need for a civilian to own a full auto weapon. The sole purpose of these things is to kill many people at once, they are military anti-personnel weapons.

Remember This?

 

[jcims]

I think the challenge to the more guns = less crime (or 'more guns == less crime' for my fellow geeks) is that there are an astronomical number of factors that influence the rate of crime, and that the presence of legally owned firearms and concealed carry simply introduces a new dynamic that will likely influence the crime rate, but not always in the intuitive way.

If you've never dug in any more than 'more guns = less crime', you are at a loss when you run into these circumstances...as statements like this reflect:

I don't know who supplies the FBI their numbers but who ever it is, is way off.

Say that in a group of anti's, and you will instantly lose all credibility...just as much, i should add, as an anti would lose if they said that in the presence of you or anyone else in this forum.

I do agree that it's a bit alarming to see the argument shot down (ouch) by a guy that works at a gun store, so much so that i in fact remember Wild making this argument consistently over a number of threads (well, two anyway). But, if you think through it, i believe you will find that you are more prepared to spar with someone elses (now simplistic) argument that less guns = less crime.

Do whatever mental gymnastics you can to put yourself into the shoes of a criminal, and tell me what more (legally owned) guns is going to do to your trade. If you tell me you're going to hang up your hat, you'd better put on your cat suit, because i've got a special word for you.

 

[Wildalaska]

I do agree that it's a bit alarming to see the argument shot down (ouch) by a guy that works at a gun store, so much so that i in fact remember Wild making this argument consistently over a number of threads (well, two anyway).

I've been making that argument in person, in testimony, in newspaper opeds and on the net (at least 25 times on these boards) since 1981, when my college Thesis was on the Gun Contol Movement. Human nature and statitsical analysis and abuse havent changed since then.

And why is it disconcerting to have me, a gun guy shoot it downmj. Isnt that the essence of the RESPONSIBLE gun owner? Intellectual honesty..or are we to be a bunch of thick headed emotional intellectual thieves like the Brady Bunch and thier statistic twitching ilk?

You argue that statistics such as these are not credible, give a good reason as to why??

Read his statement again and you tell me...its one word he uses

I know this is only one factor in the crime rate, but their is a correlation.

I win. Bet I can correlate ANYHTING.

WildcrimeistoocomplexforsimplisticanalysisAlaska

 

[Csspecs]

I feel that many crimes have much more to do with drugs, and people screwing around. More than the availability of a pistol or rifle. Most crimes in the US are still done with items other than firearms.

All history prior to around 1700 should be proof that you can't get rid of violence by banning or restricting firearms. If you did criminals would just go back to swords.

 

[alpineman]

Since I haven't written a thesis, I may get body-slammed in this thread, but..

Isnt that the essence of the RESPONSIBLE gun owner? Intellectual honesty..or are we to be a bunch of thick headed emotional intellectual thieves like the Brady Bunch and thier statistic twitching ilk?

The problem is that the "thick headed emotional intellectual theives like the Brady Bunch" are usually the group making the most noise, and they make their noise with their statistics. The media loves that. And "If it bleeds, it leads" never fails to ring true in the media as well, so gun issues tend to be screaming in the headlines with statistics to back up the reporting. And it's those headlines, statistics and reporting that drive people to demand more gun control from their Representatives and Senators who make our laws.

Unfortunately, "intellectual honesty" doesn't make very good news stories. Statistics - whether valid or not - do (or at least they're used to back up good ol' blood-soaked reporting). So, even if they're skewed, I'd rather have statistics of our own with which to fight back, rather than intellectual honesty that won't make news and, therefore, won't protect us from policy-makers who want to get re-elected.

I mean, really - how often do you see Ted Kennedy displaying charts which show "intellectual honesty" in his senate rants? He doesn't. He rants on about blood-soaked statistics. (Oh, goodness ... did I actually type "Ted Kennedy" and "intellectual honesty" in the same sentence?!?!? My bad...)

Personally, the reasons I bought my first gun and the reason I got my CCW permit had absolutely nothing to do with statistics. I doubt a statistician was consulted when the Bill of Rights was drafted. I abhor the whole my-statistics-versus-yours thing, but I firmly believe we'd better fight fire with fire. If that means fighting skewed statistics with skewed statistics, so be it.

 

[Wildalaska]

If that means fighting skewed statistics with skewed statistics, so be it.

So its OK to lie to counter a lie?

WildisntthereabetterwayAlaska

 

[Fal 4 Me]

I know this is only one factor in the crime rate, but their is a correlation.

To expand a little on what WildAlaska was saying, correlation does not prove causation. Every student of science learns this early on, unfortunately some/many seem to forget it.

I win. Bet I can correlate ANYHTING.

Exactly correct. For instance, every time I hop up and down on my right foot 4 times, then spin counter clockwise 3 times, it rains within 2 days. Does my hopping and spinning cause the rain? Absolutely not. Does my hopping and spinning correlate to the rain? Yes it does. Now can you see the fallacy of this type of argument.

 

[Blackwater OPS]

This thread is NOT about Statistics(or at least is WAS not)

Crime may be complex, but self defense is simple.

The point of this thread, was ONE incident where gun control led DIRECTLY to an increase in crime, according to the persons affected, the people actually there. The cause and effect in that one case is pretty clear.

It was not about statistics which I think are complete BS. Two wrongs don't make a right, any ten year old can tell you that. In light of this, the name of the thread was not so great. I should have been more clear, but I was in a rush and just wanted to post the link. Mainly because it was so removed from what we face here, yet it is still interesting and relevent. In any case I would rather point out the errors in the anti's "statistics" then counter with BS statistics of my own.

But what this seems to have turned into, an attack on the absolute right of gun ownership, seems incredible to me considering the people attacking as I have always respected several of their opinions. Still do by the way. If all you are attacking is statistics please make that clear as it appears you are defending anti gun positions.

Bottom line I worked the streets of the most dangerous city in the US, I do not need to be told about crime. Crime is impossible to eliminate entirely, and so in that way it is complex I suppose, although the motivations behind it are almost always very simple.

 

[spacemanspiff]

what this seems to have turned into, an attack on the absolute right of gun ownership, seems incredible to me considering the people attacking as I have always respected several of their opinions. Still do by the way. If all you are attacking is statistics please make that clear as it appears you are defending anti gun positions.

to be fair, it was the jumping to an incorrect conclusion by more than one participant that there is an 'attack on the absolute right of gun ownership', or as another put it, 'advancing of the gun control agenda' going on in this thread.

 

[Wildalaska]

If all you are attacking is statistics please make that clear as it appears you are defending anti gun positions.

I for one havent done anyhting other than to argue statistics.

However I have made my position on the 2nd amendment clear on many occasions...

WildshouldireiterateitAlaska