Subject:
|
Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:02:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
700 times
|
| |
|
|
[snipped the numbers]
Ok you are only siting the murder rate and calling it the crime rate. Armed
robbery is where increase is. The murder rate is essentially unchanged between
countries with or without strict gun control. I cannot seem to find any numbers
available online. I have heard them numerous times in various Social Studies
classes I have taken but I be darned if I can find a link to any.
> > The odds that there is no correlation is pretty slim when several 'tests'
> > have been conducted with all the same result.
>
> Please provide data from tests that demonstrate the same result, and
> please demonstrate that a causative relationship has been established
> between increased gun control and increased crime rate. The information
> you've provided so far does not do so.
>
> Rather than repeating the mantra of "gun control equals violence," let's
> set that aside for a moment and instead ask ourselves the important
> question. If and armed citizenry is really the key do reduced crime,
> explain to me why the number of gun homicides in the US in 1999 was 11,127,
> while the same year the number of gun homicides in Canada was 165.
Who knows. It has always been like that since the founding of the countries.
> Neither
> nation has particularly draconian gun control laws; if anything, Canada's
> restrictions are tighter! And Canada has double the unemployment rate of
> the US, and poverty is certainly no less widespread.
> from http://www.jsonline.com/lifestyle/advice/dec02/101310.asp
>
> Here's a postulate (which I don't actually believe, but for which there is
> at least as much "evidence" as you have cited for your case): increased
> socialization of public health care results in reduced levels of gun crime.
Again you are using the murder rate as a measure of gun crime which it is not.
> Or how about this: increased mandatory paid maternity leave results in
> reduced levels of gun crime. Or how about this one: use of the metric
> system results in decreased levels of gun crime.
> Do you see how that's fallacious reasoning? My conclusions are consistent
> with the data, if we use the US, the UK, and Canada as data sources, but I'm
> merely *assuming* a causative relationship, just as you are merely assuming
> a causative relationship between increased gun control and increased crime.>
Short, young, females are the most likely to be mugged at night. The reason is
they are the least likely to fight back.
> The funny thing is that I'm not even calling for tighter gun control!
> I've simply come to the conclusion recently that the real issue isn't gun
> control laws at all, but rather a much less "campaign-able" issue such as a
> deeper problem in US culture on the whole.
That I will agree on.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
| (...) I'm afraid that I'm not a man of faith, so I can't accept your word without evidence, especially since your entire argument depends on it. If you intend to convince me (or anyone else who doesn't already agree with you), you'll need to find (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
| (...) You're stripping away the numbers for the sake of a punchline. According to the first article, the number of firearms-related murders in 1996 England/Wales was 49. Forty-nine! Pittsburgh alone had 47 murders in 1996, and we don't have a gun (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
92 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
