asteffes
Member
Can we all please attempt to remember that CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION!?!
Can anyone refute these anti-gun arguments?
- Thread starter io333
- Start date
- Status
richyoung
Member
the dude is a waste of time - my correspondence with him follows (from bottom up
:
SO how did violent crime RISE in the UK and DROP in the US despite the UK removing guns and the US adding them? You sir, use statistics the same way a drunkard uses a lamp post - for support, rather than illumination. I'm done with you.
-----Original Message-----
From: guninformation.org [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:15 PM
To: Young, Richard C Mr Contractor
Subject: RE: Brittain, Australia crim after giun ban
Doing my work? If you are going to make a claim about the ICVS then you should back it up.
Well I took a look at that report. You seem to be quite selective in your use of numbers. You talk about Australia's overall crime rate, but don't bother to mention what the report said about the UK in that respect (percentage of people victimized once or more):
UK-
1992- 30.2
1996- 30.9
2000- 26.4
Well, that's the prevalence rate according to the ICVS. And the British Crime Survey (which has a sample size 20 times that of the ICVS) has reported that violent crime in Britain has been declining.
As for you claims about the gun homicides in the Australian state of Victoria, you should look at this report.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html
I think that WorldNetDaily needs to look at the big picture of what has happened in Australia.
And don't tell me that they don't have a political axe to grind.
You've given me some ideas. I'll probably posts some graphs of crimes rates onto my websites since it seems like some people don't bother to read the reports that I have provided links to.
"Young, Richard C Mr Contractor" <[email protected]> wrote:
OK - since you want me to do YOUR work for you:
ststistics for 1992 (pre-ban):
Burglary with entry: UK - 2.5% U.S. - 3.5%
Robbery: UK - .9% U.S. - 1.7%
Sexual assault of women: UK - .3% U.S. - 1.5%
Assault with force: UK - 1.1% U.S. - 2.2%
Now, the numbers for 2000 require some explanation: the catagories for robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force are all combined into one new catagory, that of:"selected contact crime:
statistics for 2000 (post-ban):
Burglary with entry: UK - 2.8% U.S. - 1.8%
Selected contact crime: UK - 3.6% U.S. - 1.9%
These numbers come from the International Crime Victims Surveys of 1992 and 2000. They were conducted using essentially the same terminology and methods, and UNLIKE the stats you cite, were compiled by people without a politcal waxe to grind. The numbers show that violent crime went UP over %100 from 1992 to 2000 DESPITE essentially outlawing private firearms ownership and use for defense, whilst in the same period, violent crime in the U.S, DECLINED %65 DESPITE more liberal concealed-carry policies and the sale of 70 million additional firearms to the populace. If "gun control" REDUCES violent crime, why weren't the U.S.' streets "awash with blood", and WHY isn't the U.K. a peaceful paradise?
From the same source, vis-avis Down Under:
Over-all violent crime victimization:
1988 - %27.8 1991 %28.6 1999 %30.
The numbers are RISING, despite the gun ban - HOW can this be? In fact, Australia SINCE the gun ban LEADS the ICVS report in three of four catagories, burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent). In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country. WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story: Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent. In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily. There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly."
Helping you to see the light
Rich Young
-----Original Message-----
From: guninformation.org [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:35 PM
To: Young, Richard C Mr Contractor
Subject: Re: Brittain, Australia crim after giun ban
Your arguments are unconvincing since you fail to cite even one statistic or any evidence at all to back up your claims. Somehow you think that putting words in capital letters makes what you say believable.
"Young, Richard C Mr Contractor" <[email protected]> wrote:
I must respectfully inform you that according to analysis of data from the
International Crime Victimization Survey, violent crimes against people have
indeed dramatically increased in both Great Brittain and Australia since
thier gun bans were implimented. Althoug Australia soes indeed have a lower
MURDER rate than the U.S., for largely demographic reasons - (Australia
doesn't have millions of illegal immigrants pouring over a largely unpoliced
border, doesn't suffer from racial tension to the degree the U.S. does, does
not (yet) have a violent urban gang drug culter to the same degree) the
overall VIOLENT CRIME rate in Australia is HIGHER than that of the U.S.,
despite, (or more probably, because of) their recent unfortunate gun ban.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to address the other mistakes and
mis-statements on your web site.
Respectfully,
Rich young
:SO how did violent crime RISE in the UK and DROP in the US despite the UK removing guns and the US adding them? You sir, use statistics the same way a drunkard uses a lamp post - for support, rather than illumination. I'm done with you.
-----Original Message-----
From: guninformation.org [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:15 PM
To: Young, Richard C Mr Contractor
Subject: RE: Brittain, Australia crim after giun ban
Doing my work? If you are going to make a claim about the ICVS then you should back it up.
Well I took a look at that report. You seem to be quite selective in your use of numbers. You talk about Australia's overall crime rate, but don't bother to mention what the report said about the UK in that respect (percentage of people victimized once or more):
UK-
1992- 30.2
1996- 30.9
2000- 26.4
Well, that's the prevalence rate according to the ICVS. And the British Crime Survey (which has a sample size 20 times that of the ICVS) has reported that violent crime in Britain has been declining.
As for you claims about the gun homicides in the Australian state of Victoria, you should look at this report.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html
I think that WorldNetDaily needs to look at the big picture of what has happened in Australia.
And don't tell me that they don't have a political axe to grind.
You've given me some ideas. I'll probably posts some graphs of crimes rates onto my websites since it seems like some people don't bother to read the reports that I have provided links to.
"Young, Richard C Mr Contractor" <[email protected]> wrote:
OK - since you want me to do YOUR work for you:
ststistics for 1992 (pre-ban):
Burglary with entry: UK - 2.5% U.S. - 3.5%
Robbery: UK - .9% U.S. - 1.7%
Sexual assault of women: UK - .3% U.S. - 1.5%
Assault with force: UK - 1.1% U.S. - 2.2%
Now, the numbers for 2000 require some explanation: the catagories for robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force are all combined into one new catagory, that of:"selected contact crime:
statistics for 2000 (post-ban):
Burglary with entry: UK - 2.8% U.S. - 1.8%
Selected contact crime: UK - 3.6% U.S. - 1.9%
These numbers come from the International Crime Victims Surveys of 1992 and 2000. They were conducted using essentially the same terminology and methods, and UNLIKE the stats you cite, were compiled by people without a politcal waxe to grind. The numbers show that violent crime went UP over %100 from 1992 to 2000 DESPITE essentially outlawing private firearms ownership and use for defense, whilst in the same period, violent crime in the U.S, DECLINED %65 DESPITE more liberal concealed-carry policies and the sale of 70 million additional firearms to the populace. If "gun control" REDUCES violent crime, why weren't the U.S.' streets "awash with blood", and WHY isn't the U.K. a peaceful paradise?
From the same source, vis-avis Down Under:
Over-all violent crime victimization:
1988 - %27.8 1991 %28.6 1999 %30.
The numbers are RISING, despite the gun ban - HOW can this be? In fact, Australia SINCE the gun ban LEADS the ICVS report in three of four catagories, burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent). In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country. WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story: Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent. In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily. There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly."
Helping you to see the light
Rich Young
-----Original Message-----
From: guninformation.org [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:35 PM
To: Young, Richard C Mr Contractor
Subject: Re: Brittain, Australia crim after giun ban
Your arguments are unconvincing since you fail to cite even one statistic or any evidence at all to back up your claims. Somehow you think that putting words in capital letters makes what you say believable.
"Young, Richard C Mr Contractor" <[email protected]> wrote:
I must respectfully inform you that according to analysis of data from the
International Crime Victimization Survey, violent crimes against people have
indeed dramatically increased in both Great Brittain and Australia since
thier gun bans were implimented. Althoug Australia soes indeed have a lower
MURDER rate than the U.S., for largely demographic reasons - (Australia
doesn't have millions of illegal immigrants pouring over a largely unpoliced
border, doesn't suffer from racial tension to the degree the U.S. does, does
not (yet) have a violent urban gang drug culter to the same degree) the
overall VIOLENT CRIME rate in Australia is HIGHER than that of the U.S.,
despite, (or more probably, because of) their recent unfortunate gun ban.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to address the other mistakes and
mis-statements on your web site.
Respectfully,
Rich young
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Zrex, you are right that arguing with some anti on the net is a waste of time. However, there are millions of uninformed, gullible sheep out there who vote based on their emotions, rather than on facts or rights. Additionally, the party that supports disarmament has a record of vote fraud to enhance their power in the .gov.
Being prepared to refute this nonsense, one heart and mind at a time is the best thing that we can do to inform the flock. The mainstream media will not help us, will not defend or seek the truth, and largely has an agenda of supporting centralized power because they stand to benefit from it. (makes local news reporting less relevant.)
It goes against the basic grain of those of us who simple want to be left alone to try and persuade others to our point of view. After all, we leave them alone to believe what they want. But the opposing view is not content to leave you (us) alone and, if unattended, will hoard power while we aren't looking and use it for cross purposes.
Stay informed. Stay vigilant. Stay free.
That others will also be free is a beneficial side effect.
That the power-grabbing antis will be torqued off by so much freedom is just plain fun.
Being prepared to refute this nonsense, one heart and mind at a time is the best thing that we can do to inform the flock. The mainstream media will not help us, will not defend or seek the truth, and largely has an agenda of supporting centralized power because they stand to benefit from it. (makes local news reporting less relevant.)
It goes against the basic grain of those of us who simple want to be left alone to try and persuade others to our point of view. After all, we leave them alone to believe what they want. But the opposing view is not content to leave you (us) alone and, if unattended, will hoard power while we aren't looking and use it for cross purposes.
Stay informed. Stay vigilant. Stay free.
That others will also be free is a beneficial side effect.
That the power-grabbing antis will be torqued off by so much freedom is just plain fun.
My last post on that sorry board:
Guncite? Surely you jest. I accept their truthfulness about as well as you would accept a reference from an NRA publication.
Want to know what some of the founding fathers intended about citizens owning arms and why? Read the Federalist papers. Even Guncite doesn't dare refute these. They are far too clear and widely distributed to discredit. If you are truly interested in the history of the idea, look into the original 13 colonies' individual state constitutions. They are quite clear on the matter.
Reread my post about Japan. If you'd care to discuss the related issues, I'd be glad to. Social and economic class structures and post WWII conditions have considerable bearing here.
If evil guns are the simple reason for crime, why do large cities with the most strict gun control have the highest gun-related murder rates? Switzerland should be mired in gun violence, as their gun ownership rates nears that of the U.S. As I'm sure you are aware, their crime rate is quite low. They also managed to avoid being invaded in either of the two World Wars. An armed populace is helpful that way.
I suspect that the reason you have offered no counter to my explantion about the placement of the 2nd Amendment is that you have none. I have yet to meet a person who does when thought of in that light. The word "militia" is often confusing to simple-minded gun-control activists that haven't carefully studied the history of the issue. When condidering the structure of the Constitution and how the enumeration of powers is clearly segregated in every other way, the intent of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. It was inculded in the Bill of Rights because it is a right of the people. If you have an arguement here, let's hear it. I've debated this at the collegiate level and have yet to hear a counter-arguement on this point. I could use the practice!
I'd also be interested to hear how American law has been effective at eliminating any product or service. The sexual nature of men and women have created demand for prostitution for thousands of years. That demand has been satisfied despite laws against it in most countries. Drugs? Same story.
Of course, there are countries in the world where people are not allowed to own private arms. Some of them have low gun-related violence. Others suffer greatly at the hands criminals who don't care to follow such laws. You folks know the pro-gun arguements. History has not been kind to people that surrender their arms. "Those that beat their swords to plowshares will plow for those that don't."
I fully agree with the Benjamin Franklin quote I mentioned above. I think some of you are willing to forsake liberty for a little safety. I also agree with old Ben that you deserve neither. As I said earlier, I respect and value your right to think differently. I think it is short-sighted and cowardly, but I respect your right to your thoughts and voice.
It is your right to not own guns and not like them. It is not your right, by any stretch of the imagination, to demand that I not have them. It is no more reasonable than telling a man where and how he may worship or speak.
While it is sometimes an exercise in futility, it is often satisfying to argue these folks into a position where they can't say anything. Once in a great while, learning actually takes place. While these folks may never take up arms themselves, they may gain a level of understanding that may help them vote a little wiser.
Guncite? Surely you jest. I accept their truthfulness about as well as you would accept a reference from an NRA publication.
Want to know what some of the founding fathers intended about citizens owning arms and why? Read the Federalist papers. Even Guncite doesn't dare refute these. They are far too clear and widely distributed to discredit. If you are truly interested in the history of the idea, look into the original 13 colonies' individual state constitutions. They are quite clear on the matter.
Reread my post about Japan. If you'd care to discuss the related issues, I'd be glad to. Social and economic class structures and post WWII conditions have considerable bearing here.
If evil guns are the simple reason for crime, why do large cities with the most strict gun control have the highest gun-related murder rates? Switzerland should be mired in gun violence, as their gun ownership rates nears that of the U.S. As I'm sure you are aware, their crime rate is quite low. They also managed to avoid being invaded in either of the two World Wars. An armed populace is helpful that way.
I suspect that the reason you have offered no counter to my explantion about the placement of the 2nd Amendment is that you have none. I have yet to meet a person who does when thought of in that light. The word "militia" is often confusing to simple-minded gun-control activists that haven't carefully studied the history of the issue. When condidering the structure of the Constitution and how the enumeration of powers is clearly segregated in every other way, the intent of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. It was inculded in the Bill of Rights because it is a right of the people. If you have an arguement here, let's hear it. I've debated this at the collegiate level and have yet to hear a counter-arguement on this point. I could use the practice!
I'd also be interested to hear how American law has been effective at eliminating any product or service. The sexual nature of men and women have created demand for prostitution for thousands of years. That demand has been satisfied despite laws against it in most countries. Drugs? Same story.
Of course, there are countries in the world where people are not allowed to own private arms. Some of them have low gun-related violence. Others suffer greatly at the hands criminals who don't care to follow such laws. You folks know the pro-gun arguements. History has not been kind to people that surrender their arms. "Those that beat their swords to plowshares will plow for those that don't."
I fully agree with the Benjamin Franklin quote I mentioned above. I think some of you are willing to forsake liberty for a little safety. I also agree with old Ben that you deserve neither. As I said earlier, I respect and value your right to think differently. I think it is short-sighted and cowardly, but I respect your right to your thoughts and voice.
It is your right to not own guns and not like them. It is not your right, by any stretch of the imagination, to demand that I not have them. It is no more reasonable than telling a man where and how he may worship or speak.
While it is sometimes an exercise in futility, it is often satisfying to argue these folks into a position where they can't say anything. Once in a great while, learning actually takes place. While these folks may never take up arms themselves, they may gain a level of understanding that may help them vote a little wiser.
DarthBubba
Member
Don't care all statistical studies are useless
Hey all,
Just read the book “How To Lie With Statistics” by Darrell Huff.
This wonderful book will help you see that all of the polls and collected data that is turned into statistics for public is easily manipulated to tell what ever story you want.
You all know what that means, Hey we can get what ever results that we need to push dangerous legislation off on the people and if the news media shouts it loud enough for long enough it will become the truth.
Wake up folks it is all Bull Chips.
DarthBubba
Hey all,
Just read the book “How To Lie With Statistics” by Darrell Huff.
This wonderful book will help you see that all of the polls and collected data that is turned into statistics for public is easily manipulated to tell what ever story you want.
You all know what that means, Hey we can get what ever results that we need to push dangerous legislation off on the people and if the news media shouts it loud enough for long enough it will become the truth.
Wake up folks it is all Bull Chips.
DarthBubba
RaggedClaws
Member
What's wrong with Guncite?
Henry,
I hear what you are saying and tend to agree. One has to stay apprised of the facts and be prepared to share them with those who are uninformed and willing to listen. My big problem is wasting time on people who are as firmly anti-gun as you are pro-gun and who seek out arguments just to entertain themselves. They live off the grief they cause others. The last thing those people want is to get NO reaction. They live on hate mail. They make themselves happy by making you angry. They are an absolute waste of time.
That being said, I like talking to those who are open minded or uninformed but willing to listen. Of course, the best way to convert folks is to take them shooting.
I hear what you are saying and tend to agree. One has to stay apprised of the facts and be prepared to share them with those who are uninformed and willing to listen. My big problem is wasting time on people who are as firmly anti-gun as you are pro-gun and who seek out arguments just to entertain themselves. They live off the grief they cause others. The last thing those people want is to get NO reaction. They live on hate mail. They make themselves happy by making you angry. They are an absolute waste of time.
That being said, I like talking to those who are open minded or uninformed but willing to listen. Of course, the best way to convert folks is to take them shooting.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Zrex - We are in total agreement.
joab
Member
And that purpose is served by engaging the antis on their own turf.
Arguing with them does no good, they're a lost cause.
However many uninformed, but willing to learn, are visiting these anti sites.
It wasn't all that long ago that I had some slight anti leanings coming to sites like this and the one being discussed are where I developed my somewhat informed opinion.
It was the intelligent fact based responses here and THR as opposed to the emotional almost hysterical responses of the anti sites that cemented my stand
This guy presents a reasoned argument that a fence sitter may take as fact if not debunked with reasonable dialog instead of base "It's my right and your stupid" responses
These comments come up often in daily conversations with co workers and acquaintances. I for one would like to be able to defend myself with good solid arguments instead of pat answers.
Every anti you meet is a possible convert every kid you meet is a possible future politician
griz
Member
OK, if you're primarily concerned about the UK stuff, then I will quote this from the source of your refrences main cite, the British Crime Survey:
"The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office"
It is the results of a survey and the authors conclusions instead of the promised statistical look at the UKs crime rate. And no I didn't wade through the entire report, but if you are unwilling to search then a quick skim on my part and a look at page one puts me ahead.
"The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office"
It is the results of a survey and the authors conclusions instead of the promised statistical look at the UKs crime rate. And no I didn't wade through the entire report, but if you are unwilling to search then a quick skim on my part and a look at page one puts me ahead.
- Status
