gun control:i dont understand...

Ahnimus

dunkman wrote:

i never said CRIME as a whole would go down... the topic at hand was that the murder rate if there were no guns would stay the same (so onelongsong said) and yet you dismissed all the facts on that page and posted the only three crimes that showed any rise..

i'll post the whole paragraph rather than filtering it to suit my needs :rolleyes:


Between 1997 and 1998, according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder decreased from 0.73 to 0.00 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 100%. The rate for rape decreased from 16.35 to 14.53 a decrease of 11.1%. The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate for burglary decreased from 903.09 to 761.09 a decrease of 15.7%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%. (Note that data for motor vehicle theft were not reported to INTERPOL by Iceland for years 1997 and 1998.)



i know ahnimus only posted to try and prove me wrong but he of all people (being so smart as he is) should know that he shuld post a: the whole facts not just the ones promoting his viewpoint and b: he should really read the posts first... this was about murder rates staying the same as a result of guns being wiped off the earth.. no-one mentioned larceny

Who is cherry-picking? You claimed that a lack of guns would cause homicide rates to decrease and pasted one stat. You've made a causal inference error by stating that "no guns" equals "0.0001 per 100,000 homicides" so I reiterated that same fallacy by implying that "no guns" equals a "44000% increase in larceny"

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Thanks OLS.

I seriously do not like guns myself. I know of a number of accidents with guns that could have easily been avoided. But it's just not a solution to these problems of homicide. Murder has been around longer than gun powder. Ever since humans could grasp stones we've been killing each other.

The chance of being shot at school is 1 / 2,000,000. It hasn't really increased either, it's simply garnered more media coverage. So it doesn't seem like that serious of an issue. Given the history of the United States, it is perhaps a sufficient sacrifice to maintain civilian rights.

so tell me; is a person more likely to be hit by lightening? i know they're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or am i wrong?

dunkman

Ahnimus wrote:

Who is cherry-picking? You claimed that a lack of guns would cause homicide rates to decrease and pasted one stat.

no i didnt.. i said that there are no guns on iceland yet murder rate was almost 0%.. i never said it decreased nor increased... i just sated how low they actually are and yet they have no guns.. what you infer from that is up to you.

You've made a causal inference error by stating that "no guns" equals "0.0001 per 100,000 homicides" so I reiterated that same fallacy by implying that "no guns" equals a "44000% increase in larceny"

who cares... that massive larceny rise was probably due to achange in their laws or how the police could investigate such a crime.. again it doesnt even matter.. murder rates was the heart of the question... posting filtered stats about the rise in larceny has zero to do with this topic

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

i never said CRIME as a whole would go down... the topic at hand was that the murder rate if there were no guns would stay the same (so onelongsong said) and yet you dismissed all the facts on that page and posted the only three crimes that showed any rise..

i'll post the whole paragraph rather than filtering it to suit my needs :rolleyes:


Between 1997 and 1998, according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder decreased from 0.73 to 0.00 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 100%. The rate for rape decreased from 16.35 to 14.53 a decrease of 11.1%. The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate for burglary decreased from 903.09 to 761.09 a decrease of 15.7%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%. (Note that data for motor vehicle theft were not reported to INTERPOL by Iceland for years 1997 and 1998.)



i know ahnimus only posted to try and prove me wrong but he of all people (being so smart as he is) should know that he shuld post a: the whole facts not just the ones promoting his viewpoint and b: he should really read the posts first... this was about murder rates staying the same as a result of guns being wiped off the earth.. no-one mentioned larceny

since when did the topic become murder rates? the title still says gun control. if someone proves you wrong; be a man and admitt it.

Ahnimus

dunkman wrote:

no i didnt.. i said that there are no guns on iceland yet murder rate was almost 0%.. i never said it decreased nor increased... i just sated how low they actually are and yet they have no guns.. what you infer from that is up to you.



who cares... that massive larceny rise was probably due to achange in their laws or how the police could investigate such a crime.. again it doesnt even matter.. murder rates was the heart of the question... posting filtered stats about the rise in larceny has zero to do with this topic

And the stat you posted has ZERO to do with the topic. It's a totally useless statistic because it's not clear how the homicide rate and the gun laws are related. If you want to see an effect you need a larger sample size, preferably cross-cultural to rule out cultural influences. You posted mindless rhetoric and I countered it with mindless rhetoric.

I went into details of the ciminal psychology and made quite a lengthy argument for some half-wit alcoholic to come along and counter it with the useless shit you posted. Personally it's insulting to my intelligence to read arguments like that. Now, let's look at a truly comparitive study instead of the cherry-picking.

If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19
New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).

An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws concluded that not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in acts of violence."20 For example:21


When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

so tell me; is a person more likely to be hit by lightening? i know they're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or am i wrong?

Yea, probably more likely to be hit by lightning. Definately more likely to suffer death by a lamp or falling down.

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

no i didnt.. i said that there are no guns on iceland yet murder rate was almost 0%.. i never said it decreased nor increased... i just sated how low they actually are and yet they have no guns.. what you infer from that is up to you.

why did you pick iceland? because of the low population?

dunkman wrote:

who cares... that massive larceny rise was probably due to achange in their laws or how the police could investigate such a crime.. again it doesnt even matter.. murder rates was the heart of the question... posting filtered stats about the rise in larceny has zero to do with this topic

but he also posted the rise in other crimes to show that the absense of guns does not decrease crimes.
(this bit is my opinion) if you would compare different countries as a whole; you'll see that the murder rate did rise. ie: canada; the uk; austrailia; etc.
also keep in mind that the last school shooting was in finland. school shootings are not isolated to the us.

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

since when did the topic become murder rates? the title still says gun control. if someone proves you wrong; be a man and admitt it.

onelongsong wrote:

if you wiped every gun from this earth; the murder rate wouldn't go down.

i then said Iceland has no guns and yet its murder rate is almost non-existent.

he never proved me wrong... if you had said "banning guns means other violent crimes rise" then i might have looked at the facts and acquisced.. but if there were no guns on this planet then the murder rate would go down... and i firmly believe that... i actually find it hard to see the correlation between banning guns and violent crime... i would say banning guns in scotland meant a rise in violent crimes cos of societal reasons... the banning of the guns was just co-incidental.

at least 9 people who died in the mall recently would probably be here... ok some shitty frug dealer in South Central might stab 6 more people than he meant to but i really couldnt give a fuck if criminals kill each other... its when innocents get shot at in schools, malls, etc then it becomes an issue...

dunkman

Ahnimus wrote:

I went into details of the ciminal psychology and made quite a lengthy argument for some half-wit alcoholic to come along and counter it with the useless shit you posted. Personally it's insulting to my intelligence to read arguments like that. Now, let's look at a truly comparitive study instead of the cherry-picking.

hey brainboy.. do you think i seriously give a fuck about insulting your intelligence... you carry on believing your some sort of oracle on here... you never post anything other than "copy and paste" from some other smart fuckers work... anyone can do that.. havent you got some algebraic equations to talk about on youtube instead of calling me a half-wit alcoholic..

did i post anything derogatory about you (well until this post at least) NO.. i didnt... so why have a go at me.. a poor go but a go nonetheless...

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

And the stat you posted has ZERO to do with the topic. It's a totally useless statistic because it's not clear how the homicide rate and the gun laws are related. If you want to see an effect you need a larger sample size, preferably cross-cultural to rule out cultural influences. You posted mindless rhetoric and I countered it with mindless rhetoric.

I went into details of the ciminal psychology and made quite a lengthy argument for some half-wit alcoholic to come along and counter it with the useless shit you posted. Personally it's insulting to my intelligence to read arguments like that. Now, let's look at a truly comparitive study instead of the cherry-picking.

wow; that was some lesson for me. i lived in chicago in the 80's and knew people who moved out of morton grove and evanston. a few other suburbs followed in their footsteps so the criminals actually traveled to those towns because they knew they wouldn't be met by an armed homeowner. i believe it was the town of glenco which has the richest population; had home invasions and robberies go through the roof. i don't know about it's murder rate though.

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

but he also posted the rise in other crimes to show that the absense of guns does not decrease crimes.

but thats not the point... you said no guns on this earth would mean no change in the murder rate... and thats just not true.... its your opinion but its highly unlikely.

there are how many gun deaths in the US or Brasil per year? hundred of thousands... i'd bet all my wordly possessions that if all guns were wiped out tomorrow the murder rate would go down... now stabbings would probably rise some 300% or whatever random figure you chose but it simply wouldnt make up the shortfall.

basically.. banning guns might mean a rise in stabbings, batterings, baseball bats to the head... but the overall kill total will come down... it just will.

Ahnimus

dunkman wrote:

hey brainboy.. do you think i seriously give a fuck about insulting your intelligence... you carry on believing your some sort of oracle on here... you never post anything other than "copy and paste" from some other smart fuckers work... anyone can do that.. havent you got some algebraic equations to talk about on youtube instead of calling me a half-wit alcoholic..

did i post anything derogatory about you (well until this post at least) NO.. i didnt... so why have a go at me.. a poor go but a go nonetheless...

Because you are symbolic of the alcoholic culture prominant around here and perhaps I was off my base in making those statements. I don't think you understand the frustration of dedicating your time to truely understanding an issue to have it disregarded by and large by people who specialize in drinking beer. People come into these threads, they don't read a damn thing and the arguments are totally pointless, but in their miswired brain I guess it means something.

It's not just here, I wrote a huge thread on another site tracing the history of the enlightenment era and the influences of Spinoza, Holbach, Voltaire, Franklin, Jefferson, up to present day thinkers, the influences on our culture and the reconcilatory problem of scientific determinism and Christianity to have one person post a picture of a mountain and say "This is God". All I can say is go back to getting hammered and living a blur of an existence and don't even attempt to get into a meaningul debate, because a picture of a fucking mountain has no value to the topic at all.

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

i then said Iceland has no guns and yet its murder rate is almost non-existent.

he never proved me wrong... if you had said "banning guns means other violent crimes rise" then i might have looked at the facts and acquisced.. but if there were no guns on this planet then the murder rate would go down... and i firmly believe that... i actually find it hard to see the correlation between banning guns and violent crime... i would say banning guns in scotland meant a rise in violent crimes cos of societal reasons... the banning of the guns was just co-incidental.

at least 9 people who died in the mall recently would probably be here... ok some shitty frug dealer in South Central might stab 6 more people than he meant to but i really couldnt give a fuck if criminals kill each other... its when innocents get shot at in schools, malls, etc then it becomes an issue...

my post was based on the stats from everal countries; not just one. your post was biased and prejudiced. you found 1 country where the rate went down just because you looked at the stats on murder rates as a whole and found you were wrong. so you sought out 1 country; small and low population; where the rate did go down trying to prove a point. ahnimus posted the stats from many countries and jeanie i believe; posted the stats from austrailia. when guns were not available; murderers used knives. the reason the rate when up is because a knife wound is more fatal than a bullet wound. a knife wound causes more bleeding and is harder to repair. also; at the close distance needed to inflict a knife wound; the attacker is more likely to cut an artery.

dunkman

Ahnimus wrote:

Because you are symbolic of the alcoholic culture prominant around here and perhaps I was off my base in making those statements. I don't think you understand the frustration of dedicating your time to truely understanding an issue to have it disregarded by and large by people who specialize in drinking beer. People come into these threads, they don't read a damn thing and the arguments are totally pointless, but in their miswired brain I guess it means something.

It's not just here, I wrote a huge thread on another site tracing the history of the enlightenment era and the influences of Spinoza, Holbach, Voltaire, Franklin, Jefferson, up to present day thinkers, the influences on our culture and the reconcilatory problem of scientific determinism and Christianity to have one person post a picture of a mountain and say "This is God". All I can say is go back to getting hammered and living a blur of an existence and don't even attempt to get into a meaningul debate, because a picture of a fucking mountain has no value to the topic at all.

why is it miswired... cos it doesnt fit with your viewpoint? as much as i dont agree with onelongsong and his gun ethics i wouldnt say he was miswired for dis-agreeing with me... far from it... he's a smart bloke with a differing viewpoint from mine... so what?

and what has booze got to do with it... some of the worlds greatest writers and thinkers were boozers... because labelling seems to suit you would you call them half-wits? no, because they fit your dream team of intelligentsia that you so wish to belong to.

dunkman

Ahnimus wrote:

Because you are symbolic of the alcoholic culture prominant around here and perhaps I was off my base in making those statements.

c'mon ahnimus... you know nothing about me and me nothing about you... to call me a symbol of half-wit alcoholism is clutching at greased straws... and i've already said that unless you would say that to my face you really shouldn't be saying it on a forum, where you can hide behind the monitor

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

but thats not the point... you said no guns on this earth would mean no change in the murder rate... and thats just not true.... its your opinion but its highly unlikely.

there are how many gun deaths in the US or Brasil per year? hundred of thousands... i'd bet all my wordly possessions that if all guns were wiped out tomorrow the murder rate would go down... now stabbings would probably rise some 300% or whatever random figure you chose but it simply wouldnt make up the shortfall.

basically.. banning guns might mean a rise in stabbings, batterings, baseball bats to the head... but the overall kill total will come down... it just will.

first of all; it's hard to respect someone who doesn't show respect. what you said to ahnimus was out of line. he deserves more respect. he and i lock horns more than any 2 people here; but i respect him for his knowledge and his unbiased posting of stats.

now; there are 10,000 gun deaths in the us per year. we have a population of about 330 million, not counting 15 million illegals. you do the math. there are approximately 40,000 deaths caused by drunk drivers. if your true interest is saving lives; you should be concentrating on banning alcohol. it would save 4 times more lives. alcohol is the biggest killer of kids under the age of 21 both directly and indirectly. (per MADD). you would save many more children by banning alcohol. you told me your interest was saving lives and particularly the lives of children. if that's true, you must be open minded to the real problems and not fixate on an inanimate object.

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

c'mon ahnimus... you know nothing about me and me nothing about you... to call me a symbol of half-wit alcoholism is clutching at greased straws... and i've already said that unless you would say that to my face you really shouldn't be saying it on a forum, where you can hide behind the monitor

we may not know you personally; but that is the way you portray yourself. if someone dissagrees with you; your first instinct is to fight. that is the sign of an alcoholic. you constantly badmouth people; another sign of an alcoholic. you stomp your feet and insist your right when you don't know all the information; yet another sign. when the evidence is laid out for you in black and white; you refuse to accept it; another sign of an alcoholic. i could go on but i won't embarrass you here. i've been here many years and your posts are predictable and consistant. thus proving the analisis is not based on todays encounter.

now; it seems that you're the one bad mouthing people and threatening them while hiding behind a monitor. it seems 9 out of 10 of your posts include a threat. YOUR the one posting them on a forum and NOT making them to our faces.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

first of all; it's hard to respect someone who doesn't show respect. what you said to ahnimus was out of line. he deserves more respect. he and i lock horns more than any 2 people here; but i respect him for his knowledge and his unbiased posting of stats.

now; there are 10,000 gun deaths in the us per year. we have a population of about 330 million, not counting 15 million illegals. you do the math. there are approximately 40,000 deaths caused by drunk drivers. if your true interest is saving lives; you should be concentrating on banning alcohol. it would save 4 times more lives. alcohol is the biggest killer of kids under the age of 21 both directly and indirectly. (per MADD). you would save many more children by banning alcohol. you told me your interest was saving lives and particularly the lives of children. if that's true, you must be open minded to the real problems and not fixate on an inanimate object.

In addition, alcoholism has a negative impact on intellectual cognitive ability.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa04.htm

Alcohol, believe it or not, damages brains and makes people stupid.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Because you are symbolic of the alcoholic culture prominant around here and perhaps I was off my base in making those statements. I don't think you understand the frustration of dedicating your time to truely understanding an issue to have it disregarded by and large by people who specialize in drinking beer. People come into these threads, they don't read a damn thing and the arguments are totally pointless, but in their miswired brain I guess it means something.

It's not just here, I wrote a huge thread on another site tracing the history of the enlightenment era and the influences of Spinoza, Holbach, Voltaire, Franklin, Jefferson, up to present day thinkers, the influences on our culture and the reconcilatory problem of scientific determinism and Christianity to have one person post a picture of a mountain and say "This is God". All I can say is go back to getting hammered and living a blur of an existence and don't even attempt to get into a meaningul debate, because a picture of a fucking mountain has no value to the topic at all.

i beg to differ. i come here to learn. i listen to viewpoints and retain information presented.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

In addition, alcoholism has a negative impact on intellectual cognitive ability.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa04.htm

Alcohol, believe it or not, damages brains and makes people stupid.

my grandad was an alcoholic and he went from an intelligent business man to being dumb as a rock. that's why i never had an interest in alcohol.