Here you go again, not accepting what others tell you! Always wanting evidence instead of the argument from authority! What’s right with you?
http://www.guncontrolnetwork.org/un_report.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2656875.stm
http://www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/08/07/guns-usat.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml
Is that enough?
Bago… did you just link to NewsMax?
bago, if you suggest that it’s due to the ban in 1953 that the crime rate in England soared, you are dead wrong. Very dead wrong. :)
If crime would decrease in England with more guns? Anything’s possible, there’s a certain chance of that, certainly, but there are a lot of other measures one could take to reduce crime if you’re not keen on guns, which the British clearly aren’t.
The idea that more guns = less crime sure seems counter intuitive.
I trust intuition about as far as I can throw it on complex social questions.
Yeah, except for my Spider Sense.
Those links are statistically embarassing, bago.
In a desperate attempt to get on a Koontzian list of “Poster Who Most Egregiously Revives Dead Threads”, McCullough makes his play…
Not robbers. BURGLERS. There’s a difference.
I think that they think that if burglers feel that they won’t get shot or stabbed if they wake the occupants of a home, that the burglers won’t feel the need to carry knives of guns on their persons, thereby decreasing the chances of harming the innocents.
Cops in Britain are still only issued batons.
“Stop!” shouted the copper, “Or I shall yell, ‘Stop!’ again!”[/quote]
Ah if only.
A more usual sight now in the City, is a squad in body armour with Mp5 smg’s. Out in the suburbs its not as bad, although stun guns and pepper spray are becoming more common.
Yeah, you’d think with 9 months to work with Jason could’ve come up with more than 6 words.
Do they even attempt to do interesting regressions? No. It’s just “hurr, this law was passed on X date and crime went down on Y date,” which is retard-level statistics.
I didn’t say you were wrong, just that I expect more than 1 word per month.
Brian, how about you defend your home and property in a manner of your choosing and let me defend my home and property in my manner of choosing, which currently is legal. If you want to charge a criminal with a golf club and yell “Shoo!”, that’s ok with me.
The BBC article highlights a good point: “violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years”
Due in large part to mandatory sentencing and stricter penalties. We have a large prisoner population which means less on the street.
Didn’t notice it was posted in Janurary. Poophead.
The BBC article highlights a good point: “violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years”. Due in large part to mandatory sentencing and stricter penalties.
I don’t believe you two have met yet. Correlation, I’d like you to meet causation. Causation, this is correlation.
-Tom
Tom, you know you aren’t supposed to invite Correlation and Causation to the same party, people get them mixed up.
But in this case, I’m not talking about skirts going up at the same time stocks go up, so a climbing stock markets leads to shorter skirts (though I wish that was true–a win-win for everyone). I’m referring to crime dropping while the number of criminals in prison goes up. There is going to be a certain number of criminals in any society. The more behind bars, the less crime we experience. It’s not like new criminals appear to fill the void. ;)
Tom, you know you aren’t supposed to invite Correlation and Causation to the same party, people get them mixed up.
Correct. I recall this happening, oh, about four posts ago. The fellow who mixed them up, his name began with a ‘Z’.
I don’t know the violent crime statistics you’re talking about, but in the case of murder, it is like new criminals appear to fill the void. Murder is – overwhelmingly – a one-time offense, which is why serial killers get their own special name.
-Tom
True, but not all criminals in prison are one-shot murderers. I bet someone here can Google and tell us the stats, but I’m willing to bet you a steak dinner that over half the prison population contains repeat offenders. I’m also willing to make the leap of logic that frequently, repeat offenders–serial criminals, if you will–end up as one time murderers, somewhere along in their career.
So what you are actually saying is that you have no clue about any of this, no facts to back you up on any level, but you are still willing to bet on your own opinions as were they facts.
That makes you a dumbass, regardless of whether you happen to be right or not.