JohnRich 4 #26 January 27, 2009 QuoteIf murders are an issue, then you attack whatever is the primary cause of murders. There it is again. Where does this single-mindedness come from? You attack EVERY cause of murder, not just the biggest one. If medical professionals took that attitude, they would only be concerned about heart disease, and would sit around and do nothing about cancer, strokes or diabetes. If skydivers too that attitude, we would concern ourselves only with low hook turns, and do nothing about aircraft problems, low pulls or canopy collisions. Would that make sense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #27 January 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteSee anything contradictory there? No, because OZ has already taken realistic steps to control firearms, unlike the USA. Your arguments are specious. See the attached chart showing Aussie homicide rates. (Source: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Asxq22dkM8kJ:www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi261.pdf+australia+murder+rate+chart&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) The gun ban and buyback was in 1998. Now, tell me how the gun ban caused lower murder rates. As you can see, the murder rate was already going down BEFORE the gun ban. And then leveled off AFTER the gun ban. And yet you see this as proof of the effectiveness of the gun ban in reducing murder! Now that's specious. Not to worry though. As long as it's not as bad as America, you shouldn't concern yourself with it. There's nothing to see here. You have nothing to fear. Move along... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #28 January 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSee anything contradictory there? No, because OZ has already taken realistic steps to control firearms, unlike the USA. Your arguments are specious. See the attached chart showing Aussie homicide rates. (Source: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Asxq22dkM8kJ:www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi261.pdf+australia+murder+rate+chart&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) The gun ban and buyback was in 1998. Now, tell me how the gun ban caused lower murder rates. As you can see, the murder rate was already going down BEFORE the gun ban. And then leveled off AFTER the gun ban. And yet you see this as proof of the effectiveness of the gun ban in reducing murder! Now that's specious. Not to worry though. As long as it's not as bad as America, you shouldn't concern yourself with it. There's nothing to see here. You have nothing to fear. Move along... What an impressive misinterpretation of data. Have you been practising? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 January 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Ingenious use of a very misleading statistic, Mr. Rich. The knife murder rate in Oz is slightly lower than the knife murder rate in the USA. The gun murder rate in Oz is way way less than the gun murder rate in the USA. So the question you should ask is WHY is the GUN murder rate in the USA so out of line with other developed nations? Societal issues. Very TRUE - In Australian society only 5.2% of adults own and use firearms. Too bad there's no correlation between firearms ownership and murder, huh?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #30 January 28, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Ingenious use of a very misleading statistic, Mr. Rich. The knife murder rate in Oz is slightly lower than the knife murder rate in the USA. The gun murder rate in Oz is way way less than the gun murder rate in the USA. So the question you should ask is WHY is the GUN murder rate in the USA so out of line with other developed nations? Societal issues. Very TRUE - In Australian society only 5.2% of adults own and use firearms. Too bad there's no correlation between firearms ownership and murder, huh? RightRight again Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 January 28, 2009 Quote Quote Too bad there's no correlation between firearms ownership and murder, huh? RightRight again So that's why places like Chicago and Washington D.C. have the highest murder rates in the nation, while also having a gun ban in effect? And why Wyoming, with one of the highest gun ownership rates in the country, has the lowest murder rate? And why countries like Switzerland with a citizen militia, where nearly every home contains a full-auto assault rifle, also has a very low murder rate? Nor does correlation necessarily equal causation. Me thinks your cited studies have a few problems they need to explain... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #32 January 28, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Too bad there's no correlation between firearms ownership and murder, huh? RightRight again So that's why places like Chicago and Washington D.C. have the highest murder rates in the nation, while also having a gun ban in effect? And why Wyoming, with one of the highest gun ownership rates in the country, has the lowest murder rate? And why countries like Switzerland with a citizen militia, where nearly every home contains a full-auto assault rifle, also has a very low murder rate? Me thinks your cited studies have a few problems they need to explain... Methinks you confuse isolated cherry picked data points with statistical relevance. Methinks comparing cities with nations is apples to oranges. (Not to mention that Dallas has a higher homicide rate than Chicago, and that easliy circumvented local "bans" are silly and irrelevant). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #33 January 29, 2009 QuoteMethinks you confuse isolated cherry picked data points with statistical relevance. Methinks comparing cities with nations is apples to oranges. (Not to mention that Dallas has a higher homicide rate than Chicago, and that easliy circumvented local "bans" are silly and irrelevant). When you get enough "cherry-picked" data points that don't go the way you want them to, then it becomes proof that the theory is invalid. And there are indeed enough of those. You can't just ignore the data points that don't fit your desired mold. You think that comparing cities and nations is invalid because it's too easy to circumvent the city gun bans? Then you have to show that it's much more difficult to obtain illegal guns in a nation where guns are banned, then into a city where guns are banned. I don't think you can do that. There are plenty of examples of nations which have banned guns, that still have plenty of problems with illegal guns. England for example. Bans are ineffective everywhere they're tried. How effective has America's nationwide ban on illegal drugs been? Yeah, that's working real well, eh? As for Chicago and Dallas, you better check the most recent statistics. Chicago had horrible murder rate last year, far exceeding Dallas. Reference: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3322056 Once again, trying to correlate gun ownership and homicide doesn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #34 January 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteMethinks you confuse isolated cherry picked data points with statistical relevance. Methinks comparing cities with nations is apples to oranges. (Not to mention that Dallas has a higher homicide rate than Chicago, and that easliy circumvented local "bans" are silly and irrelevant). When you get enough "cherry-picked" data points that don't go the way you want them to, then it becomes proof that the theory is invalid. And there are indeed enough of those. You can't just ignore the data points that don't fit your desired mold. Sorry, but you are the person who is ignoring data points that don't agree with you and just concentrating on the few that do ("cherry picking"). Statistical analysis requires you to include all the data, not just the data that you like. And I don't recall there being a theory mentioned, just a statement of statistical correlation. No-one suggested causation. You protest too much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #35 January 29, 2009 Quote - an indignant string of posts saying "well, if you are worried about this, why not blame pebbles? You can kill someone with a pebble!" Certainly can, if you load them into your shotgun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 January 29, 2009 QuoteSorry, but you are the person who is ignoring data points that don't agree with you and just concentrating on the few that do ("cherry picking"). Statistical analysis requires you to include all the data, not just the data that you like. When you look at ALL the data points, you find that there are examples all over the place: There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders. There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders. There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders. There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders. When such great inconsistency exists, there can be no proof of any correlation. QuoteAnd I don't recall there being a theory mentioned, just a statement of statistical correlation. No-one suggested causation. If you can't prove causation, then there's no point in talking about correlation. Unless you're trying to fool people into believing something that isn't true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #37 January 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteSorry, but you are the person who is ignoring data points that don't agree with you and just concentrating on the few that do ("cherry picking"). Statistical analysis requires you to include all the data, not just the data that you like. When you look at ALL the data points, you find that there are examples all over the place: There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders. There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders. There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders. There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders. When such great inconsistency exists, there can be no proof of any correlation. QuoteAnd I don't recall there being a theory mentioned, just a statement of statistical correlation. No-one suggested causation. If you can't prove causation, then there's no point in talking about correlation. Unless you're trying to fool people into believing something that isn't true. That is EXACTLY the reason that proper statistical methods are needed. Statistical analysis shows correlation between gun ownership and gun fatalities. That is all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 January 30, 2009 QuoteStatistical analysis shows correlation between gun ownership and gun fatalities. That is all. Which is why one of the western states (North Dakota, I believe) with a high gun ownership rate had TWO murders last year, both by stabbings. If your 'correlation' were true, DC and Chicago would have the lowest murder rates in the country. We all know such is not the case.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #39 January 30, 2009 QuoteThat is EXACTLY the reason that proper statistical methods are needed. The CDC release a report in Oct 2003 that stated they could find no correlation between gun control laws and any reduction in gun violence. Simple fact is that some places have gun violence and some don't. It is not controlled by the amount of guns, or the number of citizens that have access to them. If gun control laws worked, you would see Chicago and DC as the safest places in the US, not places like Wyoming where they have rifle racks in bars. Population density and poverty have much more control over gun violence than guns. Work on reducing poverty and you will make more headway into reducing violence than any ban on an item."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #40 January 30, 2009 There IS a correlation between gun ownership and gun fatalities. It's not surpising there's no correlation between gun crime and gun control laws (a different matter altogether) when gun control laws are toothless and easily circumvented as they are currently enacted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 891 #41 January 30, 2009 You repeating your opinion does not make it a fact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #42 January 30, 2009 He didn't simply repeat it; he added to it with a statement that gun laws in the US haven't reduced gun crime because those laws are largely toothless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 January 30, 2009 Quote He didn't simply repeat it; he added to it with a statement that gun laws in the US haven't reduced gun crime because those laws are largely toothless. Yeah, he's gonna have to provide the proof on that one, too. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 January 30, 2009 Quote Statistical analysis shows correlation between gun ownership and gun fatalities. That is all. Of course. If there are no guns, there will be no gun fatalities. (all you idiots seem to be reading much more into his rather simple statement - stop treating this as a meaningful statement) But only gun controllers care if someone was shot rather than pushed out a window. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 January 30, 2009 Quote As you can see, the murder rate was already going down BEFORE the gun ban. And then leveled off AFTER the gun ban. And yet you see this as proof of the effectiveness of the gun ban in reducing murder! Now that's specious. John, why does the data stop in 2001? That's only 3 years past the date of the ban, and 6-7 years of data not given, which might either continue the thread you assert, or show something else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #46 January 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteAs you can see, the murder rate was already going down BEFORE the gun ban. And then leveled off AFTER the gun ban... John, why does the data stop in 2001? That's only 3 years past the date of the ban, and 6-7 years of data not given, which might either continue the thread you assert, or show something else. I looked around quite a bit for more current data, and couldn't find it. Australia seems to lag about three years behind in publishing the data, and even then, they don't make it readily available on their web sites for government statistics and law enforcement. If someone can find it, I'd like to see it. But no matter what the most recent years show, it's not going to prove any causal relationship between gun control laws and gun crime, because there is already too much evidence to the contrary, in Australia, and elsewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #47 January 30, 2009 Quote But no matter what the most recent years show, it's not going to prove any causal relationship between gun control laws and gun crime, because there is already too much evidence to the contrary, in Australia, and elsewhere. That would be my first guess, but nevertheless, the lack of sufficient data after the key effect weakens the forcefulness of your argument based on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #48 January 31, 2009 Quote Quote He didn't simply repeat it; he added to it with a statement that gun laws in the US haven't reduced gun crime because those laws are largely toothless. Yeah, he's gonna have to provide the proof on that one, too. You need proof that gun control laws are easily circumvented? Are you crazy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 February 1, 2009 QuoteYou need proof that gun control laws are easily circumvented? Are you crazy? Not at all - prove your cite, and show how MORE laws that criminals aren't going to follow is going to solve the problem.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #50 February 1, 2009 QuoteThere IS a correlation between gun ownership and gun fatalities. Just like there is a correlation between criminals and gun crime. But your statement is still silly. Yes, if there were no guns there would be no gun crime, but there would still be violent crime. The best track is to not try to eliminate the tools, work on getting rid of the problem. QuoteIt's not surpising (sic) there's no correlation between gun crime and gun control laws (a different matter altogether) when gun control laws are toothless and easily circumvented as they are currently enacted. Or it could be that criminals don't normally follow laws so no gun law will make any difference to them. You want to blame to tool and ignore the person that uses it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
