posted
"Think I'm gonna declare Jay and Liam Grand Masters of the ad-hominem and guilt by association argument styles. "Way to go. Facts aren't important, as long as you get to call your opponent a smeg-head or a Limbaugh."
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, y'know.
And anyway, that's not what I said. I said didn't say that facts weren't important, I said that I didn't care. I respect you First, but quite frankly, you reach a point where you don't give a shit.
Since I usually just try to watch most of these arguments, I can see how they go.
Omega makes a point. Daryus/Sol/First etc makes a counter point. Omega remakes his point. D/S/F make another counter point. Omega remakes his point, but with longer words. D/S/F make another point, and then ask Omega to address it. Omega declares that the world is in social decay, and that it'll turn into a real-life version of 1984 within the next 4 months.
Repeat ad nasium.
You ever tried arguing with a Jehovah's Witness? That's what this feels like.
And again, while I can repesct you for going to the library to find evidence for your claim, the fact remains that I don't have the time or the inclanation to. This isn't some sort of contest, where the winner gets a big wet kiss. Especially since it's pretty obvious that there is never going to be a winner.
This isn't conversation. This is people shouting in the direction of other people.
------------------ "I can't believe we're actually gonna meet Guru Lou. Everyone says he's the wisest man in the universe. He's sensitive, creative, has a great sense of humour, and he's a really smooth dancer. *giggles*" "You're confused Polly. We're not meeting Paul Newman." - Polly & Speedy; Samurai Pizza Cats
Of course my basic nature is selfish. I'm human. Show me a person who claims to have no struggle with selfishness, and I'll show you a liar.
The data before '96 would only be relevant to my overall conclusion if the armed robbery rate went up by 70% or more EVERY two years, before OR after the ban. I don't think that's a probable thing, but it's possible. Anyway, I didn't see any info on the ABS website for previous years, so 'bout the only thing we can do on that is ask Daryus if he thinks that's reasonable. 'Course, he doesn't think the CONFIRMED statistics are correct, so...
"And its also interesting that you trot out the tired old argument of supply-side economics. As anyone who has studied economics knows, this area is totally subjective."
Just because people disagree on something doesn't mean that there's no correct answer.
"Luckily math is math. If a zero-guns scenario has no gun-related deaths, scenarios approaching this must have decreasing levels of gun-related deaths."
Again, two dimentional thinking. You don't account for WHO has the guns. You don't account for deaths by other means that wouldn't occur if law-abiding citizens had guns. Your conclusion is flawed.
"Your assertion that more guns would reduce other types of offences is laughable."
Your inability to understand something so simple is far moreso. Guns in the hands of civilians are obviously not going to stop speeding. I never suggested such a thing. They do, however, prevent sexual assault, robbery, and assault. It's obvious that guns in the hands of law-abiding civilians prevent crime. Your assertion otherwise is laughable.
Liam:
"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, y'know."
I'd disagree. In the right hands, it can become an art.
*L*
Let's follow this argument, shall we?
I make a statement, and back it up with sources. Liberal adversaries question validity of sources. I locate sources that, within reason, can not be questioned. Liberal adversaries change the subject. I return to subject. LA's continue to ignore point, and again question the validity of my source (which has already been confirmed). I requote source. LA's engage in ad hominem attacks on me, and people not even involved in this argument. No one has yet made a point that combats mine, with the possible exception of the point that I am only using data points dating from shortly before the ban. So in theory, the increase in crime could have nothing to do with the ban, and could in fact be a regular occurance, but it seems extremely unlikely.
The fact remains that immediately after guns were banned in Australia, gun-related crimes increased by a huge amount. There only explaination submitted (except the minor recession, which wouldn't explain things) is mine, which is that the ban CAUSED the increase.
The fact also remains that the same thing occured in Brittain, with no other explaination offered.
I'm the only one with a theory that fits the available evidence, the evidence being unquestioned. There is no reason not to accept said theory until further evidence comes to light, or someone proposes a new theory that also fits the facts.
"You ever tried arguing with a Jehovah's Witness? That's what this feels like."
Funny, how I was just thinking that this is exactly like arguing with a member of some cult, who refuses to respond to any point you make, or even acknowledge that you made the point in the first place.
You wanted to bring Rush into this earlier, well, here you go: something I have in common with Rush is the fact that we both want the truth. "Relentless persuit of the truth" is how he puts it. How should we then live? I want to know how I can best do good. Therefore, I must know the truth. Some have said that the only way truth can be discovered is by debate. But for debate, I suppose I must go elsewhere, as I can find none here.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
"The fact remains that immediately after guns were banned in Australia, gun-related crimes increased by a huge amount."
Think about that statement for a moment. Just sit & think.
OK. Now here's the thought that popped into my head: "But....once guns are BANNED, then even OWNING a gun becomes a crime, & a gun-related crime at TAHT....so wouldn't that inflate the statistics as well?"
I'm wondering what the breakdown of these crimes are--how many were robbery, assault, murder....or just ownership, no license, illegal modification, etc. I didn't follow the links to the site & I probably never will because I have no desire to; it's a moot point for me--shoot me & I'm gonna cut ya.
------------------ "Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
posted
I'm not counting those as crimes. Just the ones listed on the page linked to, which (since you asked) included robbery, assault, murder, etc.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
posted
Yes, I think the a firearm related crime rate may increase due to the fact that law abidding citizens will turn in their guns, but the criminals probably won't, but given enough time, ultimately, the crime rate will drop.
------------------ If a diamond is a woman's best friend, why does a man has to settle for a dog?
posted
And I bet the Australian police or authorities are not doing a good job.
As I said, you REALLY need to enforce the issue in order to see result. I don't know how other countries work, but back then when Taiwan decided to ban fire arms, the government was dead serious about it, and even the military polices were joined up in the effort to clean up the remaining one in the market.
------------------ If a diamond is a woman's best friend, why does a man has to settle for a dog?
posted
Who said that guns were BANNED? Crikey didja even read my previous post...
Some types of high calibre and high output weapons are banned. Not guns in total. This is the fact that invalidates Omega claims. Every household that had guns prior to the gun buyback scheme still has weapons. Only this time bolt actions, rather than semi-autos. Thus to the average criminal it would make no difference. Thus invalidating the idea that crime rose because a few weapons were taken out of the hands of the general public.
------------------ "More beer, more beer, more beer, more beer! ARSE!" - Ode to God.
The following table presents the summary of findings for the recorded crime statistics in Australia between 1998 and 1999. The main features are:
The number of murder victims increased by 57 persons or 20%. Of the murder victims in 1999, 21 victims (6%) were accounted for by the discovery of 12 bodies in Snowtown, South Australia, and 9 victims related to two family murder/suicide incidents in Western Australia; * The number of assault victims rose by 2,699 persons or 2.1%; * The number of robbery victims decreased by 1,211 or 5.1%; * The number of victims for unlawful entry with intent (UEWI) and motor vehicle theft offences decreased by 18,777 (4.3%) and 1,722 (1.3%) respectively; * and The victims of other theft increased by 46,794 or 8.3%.
Well, I can't get to the referenced link, 'cause my browser keeps freezing when I try, but if I'm not mistaken, the answer to your question is 'absolutely nothing'. I've seen those numbers directly on the ABS page, and they weren't released until after that NewsMax article was written.
Liam:
I meant that as a collective 'you', refering to all my opponents. 'All y'all', as people apparently think we say down south.
*awaits Frank complaining about how the French ruined English*
You do, of course, realize that the number of gun deaths means nothing? It's the number of total crimes that counts. Of course if you remove guns gun crimes will go down. But other crime will go up to compensate.
Daryus:
Well, the fact that it's just different types of guns is...
*talks to Daryus*
OK, looks like I'm screwed on this one. According to him, the laws still allow you to carry guns in public. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what caused the jump in crime. Two suggested theories were the E. Asian mafia moving in from HK, and the mild recession. Neither looks like it could cause a 70% increase in armed robbery, but we still don't know what did. 'Bout the only possibility I can come up with is that 'armed robbery' includes breaking into someone's home, which would certainly be more likely if you knew that someone would have to go to more trouble to get to a weapon.
Although my Brittain stats still stand. That and the example of the US, where invariably, the stricter the gun control, the higher the crime. I still have a case, just not as strong a one as I thought.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
posted
My word. I applaud this guy. If only for a second. It seems, that Omega, contrary to my previous perception, is able to admit when he may be wrong. Well done. Here, have a non-alcoholic beer.
------------------ "More beer, more beer, more beer, more beer! ARSE!" - Ode to God.
(Brittain was supposed to have the little arrows underneath it, thus exposing the hilarity of my TNG modeling joke. Alas, it was not to be.)
Omega, you don't happen to be employed by Paramount, do you?
------------------ I am not good with English but excuses me. I hate you whom think bad of the gods of the thunder known under the name of ""Metallica"". Good tape of ""Metallica"" is ""Load"", that you like it or not. A much better tape of Metallica ""Load"" than overrated the tape known under the name of ""Iron Maiden"" ""Powerslave"". You all are penis for the bad one of thought about ""Lars"". ""Lars"" can take a cucumber in bottom of his throat without reflex of muzzle. Lars can too take cucumber in bottom with no stretching of bottom hole sphincter muscle. Thanks for reading. -- an anonymous fan **** Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Because I'm saving all my love for you.
[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited July 17, 2000).]
posted
Lousy French, always causing trouble! Regular singular and plural pronouns weren't good enough for you, were they? No, you had to drag in the whole polite thing, didn't you? I mean, what kind of morons would think those would work in the first place? If only the Normans had just left England alone...or better yet, stuck to good old Norse languages. (Hey, that would be cool!)
------------------ Frank's Home Page "Frank is absolutely right." - Laz Rojas
[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited July 17, 2000).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
