Another Ex. of less guns = more crime

If you've never dug in any more than 'more guns = less crime', you are at a loss when you run into these circumstances...as statements like this reflect:


Quote:
I don't know who supplies the FBI their numbers but who ever it is, is way off.


Say that in a group of anti's, and you will instantly lose all credibility...just as much, i should add, as an anti would lose if they said that in the presence of you or anyone else in this forum.
Click to expand...


You know that was my post, I was backing it up with FBI numbers to make a point and disprove them with stated local facts. I never had the chance to get there before you people were all over me. I was actually trying to make a point, but I guess I'm just not fast enough and smart enough to run with the big dogs who live on this site. Actually I'm not quite sure I want too.

kenny b
 
Intellectual dishonesty isn't a bad idea because it lacks honor. It is a bad idea because it makes you look like a chump when you're trying to make a good argument for something (like our rights).

When people start using stats poorly my eyes glaze over like I'm being told about alien autopsies and engines that run on water. The argument for the 2nd Amendment is, by its very nature, intellectual and academic. If you hope to keep up with that standard you can't just throw numbers around and not expect to get shot down.



Kenny, I agree there is a problem in the numbers reported by the FBI vs. Buffalo. Especially when the Buffalo chart makes reference to the FBI method of record keeping. What made you decide that it had to be te FBI numbers, not Buffalo's, that were in error?
 
What made you decide that it had to be te FBI numbers, not Buffalo's, that were in error?
Click to expand...

Our local news keeps running tabs on city murders, so the numbers are usually well documented. They were so far off a flag went up when glancing at the report. The FBI report seems to mirror the murder arrest column.

I don't know if its an isolated case or not, but just a few would really squinch the numbers here.

kenny b
 
So its OK to lie to counter a lie?
Click to expand...

No, sir. I'm not willing to sink quite that low. I won't advocate using any information which is patently false -- I'm not interested in lying. What I'm saying is that the statistics which may purport to show that "less guns = more crime" very likely don't address a metric ton of factors other than guns which could be influencing crime rates. The same is no doubt true of studies that would show "more guns = more crime".

I'm advocating playing by the same rules as the Brady Bunch. If they can ignore other factors in order to show "guns = crime", we should be able to play the same game to show "less guns = more crime".

Frankly, I don't disagree in principle -- I wish we could rely solely on intellectual honesty and let that be that. But we live in a time in which knee-jerk reactions to alarmist propaganda and incessant media howling tend to be the only thing other than the 'ol pork-barrel project that drives our legislature to action.

Relying on intellectual honesty to counter the Brady Bunch is little more effective than remaining silent. Statistics - and politics - are dirty battles, but they're battles we've got to fight. I'd rather fight fire with fire.
 
Someone said it better than me

The argument for the 2nd Amendment is, by its very nature, intellectual and academic. If you hope to keep up with that standard you can't just throw numbers around and not expect to get shot down.
Click to expand...

Lets shoot them down, lets not give them the ammo to shoot us down.

WildnormalblooddtodayAlaska
 
there are an astronomical number of factors that influence the rate of crime
Click to expand...
This is probably the best point made here. You'll see a better correlation between the economy than nearly anything else when crime is concered (After typing this Im almost sure Ill get proved wrong on it).

Also, Japan is very bazaar animal. Mr Walkabout knows everyone on his block, what they look like, if they're having money trouble, and so on. The value system is also pretty different over there. It's just not a very fertile ground for crime in my opinion. Sedentary lifestyle is also a big factor. If we could bring that back you'd probably see a large drop in crime. The people in Japan have also been disarmed for as long as they can remember (no sword for you).

Anyway my main point here is Japan neither an apple nor an orange.
 
The argument for the 2nd Amendment is, by its very nature, intellectual and academic. If you hope to keep up with that standard you can't just throw numbers around and not expect to get shot down.
Click to expand...

Very well said. Somebody please forward that memo to the ACLU. And NBC News. And CNN. And NPR. Don't forget the New York Times. And fax a copy to Diane Feinstein's office.

Unfortunately, that's not the "standard" by which the gun issue is judged - not in the media, and not in the halls of Congress. If it were, I'd never see people from the Violence Policy Center interviewed when it comes to gun issues. The VPC - and the Brady Bunch - are all about their statistics ... their numbers ... not about intellect.

If intellect is a factor, why is the VPC consulted on gun issues when I see it discussed on the tee-vee, and not shot down? When I hear the gun issue presented on NPR, or in Congress, I don't hear it presented in an intellectual fashion at all.... and I don't hear them getting shot down. I hear the VPC and their numbers fawned over and pandered to. If USA Today does a front-page article on a gun issue, I don't see an intellectual disussion in the article -- I see a chart or graph ... with numbers and statistics. All I hear is numbers being thrown around. The national discourse is no longer framed by intellect. It's framed by numbers.

And if that's the case, then I want numbers that show fewer guns = more crime.
 
Sedentary lifestyle is also a big factor. If we could bring that back you'd probably see a large drop in crime.
Click to expand...

In Japan....???:)

Ya mean the people that excerrsize every morning before workl or school and use public trasport (ie they walk to a from busses every day or ride bikes)...

Hell I barely walk to the refrig, I ask SWMBO to go for me.

I bet the US is the most sedentary country on earth

WildfatAlaska
 
No, as in you live in one area for most of your life. I heard one time you could tell what neighborhood a guy lived in by what he looked like. Families live in one area for a long time. -In Japan-

A good example would be calling someone a no account drifter. If you traveled from one place to another regularly there was usually a reason. That sound better W?
 
Alpine, I said that being pro-2A required using your brain. Your examples are of gun control, which is a simple and reflexive position.


The overall war is not brainy. But a true and competent 2A advocate is wise and broad thinking. That may be important when his audience doesn't agree with him, but are also more invested in reason than their phobias.


So I really don't understand your objection. I think you just misread the statement.
 
So I really don't understand your objection. I think you just misread the statement.
Click to expand...

If you mean this statement:

The argument for the 2nd Amendment is, by its very nature, intellectual and academic. If you hope to keep up with that standard you can't just throw numbers around and not expect to get shot down.
Click to expand...

I don't object, and you may have misread my statements.

Alpine, I said that being pro-2A required using your brain.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It does. My problem is that the people who listened to the spray-tanned talking heads on TV "analyze" the Columbine HS shootings or any other gun-crime (because the media hardly ever puts guns in any context other than that of crime) aren't using their brains. They aren't encouraged to do so. They're fed statistics, and they belive what they're told. That's my problem -- if we, as pro-2A people stick to our high standards, we miss the boat, because noboby who advocates banning guns seems to give a rodent's rear end about our standards.

Your examples are of gun control, which is a simple and reflexive position.
Click to expand...

We have a winner! Exactly. Gun control advocates don't encourage people to use their brains - to consider why the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. They spew pre-digested statistics instead of actually encouraging thinking.

The overall war is not brainy. But a true and competent 2A advocate is wise and broad thinking.
Click to expand...

Right. But reporters (who want high ratings and advertising dollars) and Congresspeople (who want to get re-elected) aren't interested in being brainy, wise, or broad-thinking. They tend to throw numbers around to try & appear brainy, wise and broad-thinking. People who aren't necessarily pro-Second Amendment seem to buy into it. That's the problem.

That may be important when his audience doesn't agree with him, but are also more invested in reason than their phobias.
Click to expand...

If people were interested in reason, we wouldn't have to fight gun control so often (and people would read books instead of watching American Idol). If reason worked, we wouldn't have to fight so hard against phobias which tend to be fed by the VPC's and Bradys' statistics.

I truly wish we could have an America which could reasonably discuss the Second Amendment, but it's not that way. Americans like perky statistics-spewing talking heads like Katie Couric. They like numbers. They like being told "how to keep their children safe" from those awful gun-death statistics. I'm not advocating abandoning reason -- I'm saying we've got to tailor our message to our audience -- and if statistics (which people seem way too willing to accept) work, then we should use 'em.
 
More proof that gun bans work

The UK used to have a much lower crime rate than America. Now their crime rate is rising while ours drops as citizens arm themselves.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that since the UK has made the law-abiding defenseless, the overall crime rate is up 400% with violent crime up 200%.

Of course, the antigun bigot politicians who forced the gun ban down the people's throats are trying to cover up the reality of the situation there...:barf:

Gun bans work - for criminals and politicians.
 
I read somewhere that since the UK has made the law-abiding defenseless, the overall crime rate is up 400% with violent crime up 200%.
Click to expand...

There is also a correlation between Chelsea being the best football team in the UK and the rise in criome...its clear...

Ban Chelsea!!!

WildGoGunnersAlaska
 
Alpine,

Let me put it this way: If you are sitting watching a debate between two parties, and one is well prepared, unemotional and not only uses good concrete information but can point out the logical fallacies of his opponent, who is most likely to win the debate?

Gun control is a debate, not a war. It is an ongoing public argument to sway the middle people to side with one or the other. We aren't going to change Sarah Brady's mind, and she isn't going to change ours. But our ability to effectively challenge Brady's assertions directly affects our audience's perception of the issue.


It sounds like you don't think it matters, but it does. When we sink into sensationalism, bad statistics and meaningless slogans, like our opponents, we do nothing to demonstrate the inherent intelligence that our position is based on. We give up the potential support of all those looking for an answer instead of an affirmation.


The 2A movement should comport itself like statesmen, scholars, world class salesmen and ambassadors. We have the high ground, and should hold onto it instead of throwing mud back at the natives.
 
Let me put it this way: If you are sitting watching a debate between two parties, and one is well prepared, unemotional and not only uses good concrete information but can point out the logical fallacies of his opponent, who is most likely to win the debate?
Click to expand...

That would be well & good if we had enough time for the debate. What I'm saying is that we're stuck in a situation in which our "debate" is framed by a sensationalist media. The "nightly news" lasts 30 minutes (much of which is taken up by medication commercials). Newspapers aren't much different. The framework of the modern "debate" doesn't lend itself to rational thought. Rationale takes too long. We have to make our point quickly, with plenty of whiz-flash-bang, before Brian Williams moves on to stories about Tom & Katie's super-volcanoe-spawn--Dianetics-alienbaby, sports, and the human-interest-story-of-the-moment.

The VPC and the Brady Bunch have already figured this out -- they throw out some sensational headline like, "having a gun in the home makes you a kazillion times more likely to suddenly freak out and kill preschoolers", and then they throw out a bunch of statistics, numbers & graphs to support their claim. It works -- how else can you explain the so-called "Assault-Weapons Ban" or any Californian gun law, for that matter? Those laws aren't based on rational thinking -- they came from knee-jerk reactions, probably driven by a singular event, and by flames fanned by the Bradys' statistics and numbers.

If we're to keep up, we'd better get with the program. Whether you like it or not, the American public has no time for rationale. Your run-of-the-mill soccer mom half-listens to Robin & Co. on CNN HN while trying to get her hubby off to work at the law firm & her 6 kids ready to pile into the Hummer H2 to get 'em to prep school on time. She doesn't have time for rationale. She does have time for a couple of statistics, though. And if the statistics that our beloved Mrs. Soccer Mom hears only tell her that "more guns = more crime", what is she going to do? Why, being an upstanding PTA member, she's going to pick up her celly in the Hummer H2 on the way to drop the kiddies off at prep school, and she's gonna hit speed-dial, and she's gonna tell her Congress people how guns are eeeeevil, and they should be banned, and is Mr. Congressperson's office aware of how much her hubby's firm donated to his campaign last year?

I'm not trying to get you to like it - I'm just trying to get you to see how it works. America today prides itself on multi-tasking -- not on its ability to take the time to completely think out an issue. I'm not saying it's a good thing -- I'm just calling it like I see it. That's the time in which we live. And if we want to keep the Second Amendment intact, we'd better darn-skippy-well learn how to throw Mrs. Soccer Mom some stats that show "less guns = more crime", as was suggested at the beginning of this thread.

Because she doesn't have time for a debate.

Edited to correct some of my lousy spelling.
 
rhgunguy said,

In every state that has passed CCW laws, violent crime has dropped. The UK used to have a much lower crime rate than America. Now their crime rate is rising while ours drops as citizens arm themselves.
Click to expand...

You may have a correlation, but not causation.

I have heard for years that when a state starts allowing concealed carry, crime drops. Crime apparently drops because the criminals know that there is a greater risk of coming into contact with a high trained and well armed civilian who is legally carrying a gun. So the criminals simply stop committing crime as a result, or reduce the amount. Pardon my sarcasm.

Does CCW reduce crime? Here in Texas, we started issues Concealed Handgun Licenses in 1996. Using the FBI Uniform Crime Reports found online, I found that sure enough, the crime rate in Texas dropped after the introduction of CHLs. So concealed carry must reduce crime, right? Maybe not. But the data support that CCW (CHLs) work, don't they? Nope.

But wait, Texas CHL has been so effective in lowering the rate of crime from 1996-2000 that it had a spillover effect and MA, CA, NH, and even ME way up in the northeast also reaped the rewords as their crime rates also dropped after Texas instituted CHLs. Is that amazing or what?

Of course, I don't expect any of you to believe that Texas CHL has been so successful that it lowered the crime rates in distant states. What we have is a correlation, not a causation. When examined against the bigger picture, the crime rates in all of the states I mentioned were either all showing a marked decline in crime or fluctuating decline in crime with a generalized downward trend already in the years preceding 1996. So we can say that crime dropped in Texas after we instituted the CHL program, but based on the trend already in place, the crime rate was already in decline long before the CHL program.
 
And if we want to keep the Second Amendment intact, we'd better darn-skippy-well learn how to throw Mrs. Soccer Mom some stats that show "less guns = more crime", as was suggested at the beginning of this thread.
Click to expand...

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
WildsomeonewilltranslateAlaska
 
Alpine,

There are other sources of discourse besides TV. Try talking to people, just for instance.

And when you do, I'm again recommending solid logic and facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top