Basic problem with the comaprison is that Americans are not going to give up a major right which is recognized as such in our constitution because of the possibility of crackheads and gangbangers misusing firearms.
The basic common denominators in your problems with urban violence are drugs and the "war on drugs", and the demokkkrat party. Solve those problems and the urban violence will go away. Ignore those problems, and all outlawing guns will do is eliminate any possibility of your defending yourself against the crackheads and gangbangers, who will still have them.
parados wrote:I find it amazing that you can convince yourself that 3 years below 1.6 means it still averages 1.6 while one year out of 12 below 80 means that 82 is 10 points higher.
That is hardly my view.
I just want to see whether the 1.3 numbers are a temporary dip or not, before I accept them as part of a trend.
It strikes me that 60% of our exchange involves you not understanding my views of the stats, and 40% involves you not being able to accept that I want to wait to see more data come in.
That's getting boring. Wanna discuss the legal meaning of the Second Amendment instead?
orralloy,
You made the claim that guns don't make a difference in murder rates.
When the stats you provided show you to be wrong then you claim the stats aren't enough but we have to wait for more data.
That leads back to where is the statistical data to support your original claim that guns don't make a difference in the murder rate?
Feel free to retract your claim about guns and murder rate if you want.
Your claim that "3 years is an anomaly" would point to crime didn't go up in England and Australia because the stats are an anomaly and negate any arguments that guns stop crime.
parados wrote:That leads back to where is the statistical data to support your original claim that guns don't make a difference in the murder rate?
The data behind my original claim would be the same stats minus the last two years.
Would you rather I hadn't made an effort to dig up the most up to date data when I posted it?
parados wrote:Feel free to retract your claim about guns and murder rate if you want.
I do feel free to. However, I choose to wait and verify that the 1.3 numbers aren't merely a temporary dip before I do so.
Note that even if I do shift my position in the future to say that banning guns provides a moderate decrease in murder rates and a moderate increase in robbery rates, I'd still see no reason to ban guns.
Freedom is more important than life.
oralloy wrote:parados wrote:That leads back to where is the statistical data to support your original claim that guns don't make a difference in the murder rate?
The data behind my original claim would be the same stats minus the last two years.
Would you rather I hadn't made an effort to dig up the most up to date data when I posted it?
That is too funny oralloy..
So the 3 years of data from 1998-2001 is enough data to make a decision but the 3 years from 2001-2004 isn't enough? You were more than happy to make a conclusion on only 3 years of data when it seemed to support your contention but when 3 years of data don't support it then it MUST be an anomaly.
Your standard has nothing to do with statistical analysis and everything to do with numbers that support your opinion.
Quote:
parados wrote:Feel free to retract your claim about guns and murder rate if you want.
I do feel free to. However, I choose to wait and verify that the 1.3 numbers aren't merely a temporary dip before I do so.
Note that even if I do shift my position in the future to say that banning guns provides a moderate decrease in murder rates and a moderate increase in robbery rates, I'd still see no reason to ban guns.
Freedom is more important than life.
Freedom to be intellectually dishonest seems to be important. Either 3 years of data allows you to make a decision or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you can't stand by your claim. If it does then you have to admit that the rate has gone down. You have boxed yourself in here oralloy.
"...Freedom is more important than life..."
we should tell that to the widows and children of the murder victims ,they'll surely will find great comfort in that .
hbg
parados wrote:So the 3 years of data from 1998-2001 is enough data to make a decision but the 3 years from 2001-2004 isn't enough? You were more than happy to make a conclusion on only 3 years of data when it seemed to support your contention but when 3 years of data don't support it then it MUST be an anomaly.
Endlessly correcting your misunderstanding of my position and/or dealing with your refusal to accept that I want to wait and see more data come in, has become boring.
Wanna discuss the legal meaning of the Second Amendment?
In JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER (195O) 339 US 763,
the US Supreme Court held that the US Bill of Rights
did not protect German enemy aliens, as:
"Such a construction would mean that during military occupation ...
enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and 'werewolves' could require
the American Judiciary to assure them
freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, as in the First Amendment,
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as in the Second,
security against 'unreasonable' searches and seizures as in the Fourth,
as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments." [emphasis added]
Observe that the Supreme Court finds no need
to refer to any state government militia;
this holding, and the choice of words in which it is expressed,
concern PERSONAL RIGHTS, not rights of state governments against Uncle Sam.
What ridiculous arguments I see here...You gun nuts think that the Second Amendment is there to give citizens the right to bear arms against an unjust gov't?
As if people would need permission to rebel...
This thread has smoked out the kooks. Or as one would have it, the kkkooks.
Marvelous satiric wit there, D'Art . . .
D'artagnan wrote:What ridiculous arguments I see here...You gun nuts think that the Second Amendment is there to give citizens the right to bear arms against an unjust gov't?
As if people would need permission to rebel...
This thread has smoked out the kooks. Or as one would have it, the kkkooks.
Wow! You are a bigot on par with a Klan dragon.
You may want to reference on of G-snake's recent posts on this thread, oralloy, for his usage of "demokkkrat party". What I wrote was meant as satire...
D'artagnan wrote:You may want to reference on of G-snake's recent posts on this thread, oralloy, for his usage of "demokkkrat party". What I wrote was meant as satire...
In that case, I apologize.
No problem. You're a gentleman...
In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:
"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms'".
THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING
THE SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES EVERY SECOND YEAR.
(Notably, one need not join the National Guard in order to vote for his congressman.)
The Court further defined "the people" to mean those people who have
a right peaceably to assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have the
right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment]
in their persons houses, papers and effects
(personal rights, not rights of states, as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people are
protected by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e.THE PEOPLE who can speak n worship freely
are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.
It is most noteworthy that the Court RELIED upon its definition of "the people".
Its conclusion in the VERDUGO case is founded upon that definition,
so that stare decisis attaches, thus creating binding judicial precedent,
explaining WHO THE PEOPLE ARE who have the said rights. That law
SHOULD control the courts, thus disabling all governments in America
from violating our personal rights to weaponry and self-defense.
"Supporters of "gun control" believe that if the wolves are eating the sheep,
the teeth shud be pulled from the mouths of the sheep."
i watched VISION-TV (canada's inter-faith TV) on thursday .
several politicians , scientists and religious leaders discussed the question of 'atomic weapons' and what countries should be allowed to possess them .
while most seemed to feel that there were already too many atomic weapons in the world and that a serious effort should be made to curtail the 'atomic arms race' , there was a strong dissenter .
this participant expressed the view that 'all nations' should have the right to possess atomic weapons . he cited the example of india and pakistan . he stated that relations between the two nations have improved since pakistan followed india in also obtaining aromic weapons because they are now 'more equal' (in their destructive power) .
he said that any nation not possessing atomic weapons would be at the mercy at those nations carrying them .
while i did not agree with the viewpoint when watching the program ,
i think in light of the statement :
"Supporters of "gun control" believe that if the wolves are eating the sheep,
the teeth shud be pulled from the mouths of the sheep."
i now think that the dissident perhaps had a valid point .
all one needs to do is replace the words "gun control" with the words "atomic weapon control" .
now all countries could arm themselves in a way to defend any attacker .
would there be anything wrong with that ?
hbg
D'artagnan wrote:You're a gentleman...
Well, maybe.
I think I'd have to understand "diplomacy" to be a gentleman though.
I've been told I have no comprehension of the concept.
