Subject:
|
Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:56:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
734 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> [snipped the numbers]
> Ok you are only citing 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.
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 some documentation.
In the meantime, here are a few numbers for you:
paraphrased from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi116.html
Widespread gun registration was implemented in Australia in 1997. Since
that time, there is a documented decrease in the incidence of firearm
deaths, and there is some evidence that in cases of suicide and armed
robbery, for instance, firearms have been replaced by other weapons.
Most important is this part: "Without an outcome evaluation that also takes
into account socio-demographic factors, we cannot determine more
conclusively the impact of the new firearms restrictions." That means we
can't draw conclusions from these data without a more thorough examination
of other societal factors, just as I've asserted all along.
Remember: My thesis is not "increased gun control reduces gun crime." My
thesis is "increased gun control DOES NOT increase incidence of gun crime."
Consulting this document,
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/outlook99/warner.pdf
I see on page 11 that robbery has been on the increase slowly but steadily
since at least 1988. Are you going to assert that the increase resulted
from gun licensing fully nine years before gun licensing was initiated?
Since you haven't produced any numbers to support your case, I am loath to
make the effort of seeking additional figures in support of mine.
> > 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.
In making that statement, you have expressly forfeited the argument. You
are saying, in effect, that "homicide rates have always been high in the US,
wholly independent of gun restriction." Is that your assertion? If not,
then I'd suggest you reformulate your argument on this point.
> Again you are using the murder rate as a measure of gun crime which it is not.
But wouldn't you agree that they're connected? If I rob you at gunpoint
and I happen to kill you with my gun in the process, wouldn't that count as
both armed robbery and homicide?
Further, if any considerable fraction of gun crimes are committed by one
family member against another, then you certainly can't be suggesting that
the frequency of such crimes increases with increased gun control. These
crimes should therefore be discarded from your sample, since they don't
reflect an decrease OR increase that can reasonably be connected to gun
control legislation.
And, anyway, why can't we consider gun homicides as part of the equation?
To what would you attribute the decrease in numbers of gun deaths? If it's
not due to gun control, then you should demonstrate that fact. If it *is*
due to gun control, you should admit that fact in the interest of open
argument. Further, if you don't accept a causative relationship between
increased gun control and decreased gun homicide, then you need to explain
why you *do* accept a causative relationship between increased gun control
and increased overall gun crime.
> Short, young, females are the most likely to be mugged at night. The reason is
> they are the least likely to fight back.
Most likely to be attacked as compared to whom? Frail, elderly men? Your
assertion is presumably intended to imply that, if she'd been armed, she
wouldn't have been attacked. First, that's analogous to the old "she's
asking for it" argument. Second, you're assuming that she'll be aware of an
oncoming attack and have time to produce her firearm, remove the safety,
aim, and fire. Or are you assuming she'll be carrying it in some
quick-release holster allowing her to draw, aim carefully, and fire in a
single Jet Li maneuver? A much more reasonable course of action would be
for her to avoid a dangerous setting in the first place.
The bottom line is that the possible presence of a gun is no deterrent
unless the attacker can arguably expect that the victim can use the gun
successfully.
You're in a tough spot, rhetorically speaking, and not just because I
disagree with you. As I mentioned in my last post on this subject, I don't
even advocate tighter gun control, but I reject absolutely the bogus
statistics and faulty reasoning popularly used by pro-gun advocates.
Interestingly, and to bring us sort of back on topic, your argument is
structurally similar to the Bush administration's bomb Saddam aplomb. If
Saddam is as bad as Bush says, then there's no need to fabricate false ties
between Saddam and al Qaida. The only reasons for doing so are
propaganda-based and should be discarded from serious reasoning on the subject.
In your case, you're saying that gun control is bad. If that's true, then
you shouldn't try to bolster your argument with false, deceptive, or
irrelevant statistics; either your case is sound or it isn't, and there's no
legitimate reason to fudge the data to support your position.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
| [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 (...) (21 years ago, 4-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
|
|
|
|
