Subject:
|
Gun Control issues (was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:09:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
770 times
|
| |
|
|
[Snip]
> 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.
I want to know where all these pro-gun whacko sites are getting their numbers
from.
http://www.888webtoday.com/beezley565.html
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/down_under.htm
http://www.fehq.org/public/guncontrol.htm
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html
http://www.old-hippie.com/doc_files/polit/austrailian_gun_control.htm
I find it interesting that I can not find any numbers from the anti-gun whacko
sites.
> > > 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.
I had said that from the get go.
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=19173
>
> > 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.
There was a news story about 2 or 3 years ago about a 20ish women who simply
going from school to work to home was mugged 4 times in 2 months. She bought a
handgun and 3 times over the next month reached in her purse (to "give the
mugger her wallet") and shot the guy. The third time she was arrested and
charged and convicted for vigilantism or some such nonsense. That right there
is the major problem, it is illegal to defend oneself.
>
> 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!
I think this guy sums it up pretty good.
http://ppfc.org/turner.htm
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
