April 20, 2014, 11:51:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: We have lost one of our own fellow Raider fans  (Read 1149 times)
The Prole
Franchise Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 915


Perth, Scotland


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: December 31, 2012, 04:44:55 AM »


Your data is wrong.

This is an official govt report on crime in England and Wales.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary

Feel free to read it all, but there is a lot of data so I'll point out the relevant information.

It shows a gradual increase in violent crime from 1981 which peaks in the mid 90's. Then shows a steady decline after gun control is introduced. (Page 57)

Gun violence shows a downward trend over the past decade. (Page 63)

Gun deaths also show a downward trend over the past decade. (Page 70)

Handgun offences (which are now banned) show a downward trend. (Page 71)

Offences involving replicas have gone up (Page71). Replicas won't hurt anyone, but it shows an appetite.

A separate report from the Scottish govt also highlight circumstances and motives. Most of the fire-arm crimes in Scotland involved friends, acquaintances and partners, with the main motive being rage. Presumably from a disagreement gone too far.

The amount of offences carried out by strangers, for personal gain (e.g. Robbery) were minimal. This shows it's not the armed criminal attacking you at home or in the street that's the main problem, it's the person you know who owns a weapon who presents the biggest risk. Alcohol also played a significant part.

The data does indeed support my conclusions.


My data isn't wrong.  Your data is incomplete.  You have moved the goalposts.  You started by stating that because of the gun laws in 1996 things have gotten better.  I demonstrated that was incorrect.  You then moved the goalposts to analyzing data from the 2000s.  No baseline or anything else to compare it to.  I am sorry but I am not buying the contention that "our gun violence has always been low, we then implemented gun restrictions it only went up a little bit.  This is proof that guns laws work." 


Your data is wrong because it covers total homicides, not gun homicides. And you accuse ME of moving the goalposts? I didn't deliberately omit those years, I cited a report using official figures. You produced a graph and admitted at the time you hadn't even researched its' accuracy.

The peak in 2003 in your data is down to a serial killing doctor who was killing his patients with a syringe over a 20 year period. The estimated number of about 250 victims were added in 2003 after he was convicted.

2004 contains 20 cockle pickers who were caught out and killed by an in-coming tide. They were illegal immigrants and their gang-master was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

2005 contains the 52 victims of the July 7th London bombings.

It's a bit disingenuous to include them all in a discussion about gun deaths. But if you want to discuss homicide in general the vast majority in this country are carried out using either knives or solid objects, such as bottles. People use what they have at hand. If more people carried guns, more guns would end up being used.

Glasgow in particular has a real problem with stabbings and knife culture around gangs. There are initiatives in place to help eradicate the problem and it's staring to show some signs of success. If we started giving the little arseholes easier access to guns, I shudder to think where we would end up.


OK.  I revise my statement. When gun laws are enacted, people find a different instrument to kill people.  I think we can agree on that. 

I go back to one of my original points.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  If there are no guns, people will find a different instrument.  The data from the UK fully supports this contention. 


You are correct. People will find a different instrument. However some instruments are more effective then others.

The data from the UK also show a person's chances of survival are considerably better if they are stabbed than if they are shot. Knives just don't kill people quite as efficiently as guns do.

Measures have also been put in place over here to help reduce knife crime. It is illegal to carry certain kinds in a public place without good reason and police are engaging with young guys in certain communities to help teach them about the risks involved. If they carry a knife they are statistically more likely to either use it on someone or become a victim of a stabbing themselves. A combination of education and a possible four year prison sentence for carrying a knife are beginning to show signs of success.

Also an increasing amount of bars, clubs and events are now using plastic bottles and mugs to reduce the amount of glass injuries.

The less weapons people have at hand when a situation deteriorates, the less chance someone has of losing their life.
Logged

kick em in the head
Guest
« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2012, 05:59:58 AM »


Your data is wrong.

This is an official govt report on crime in England and Wales.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary

Feel free to read it all, but there is a lot of data so I'll point out the relevant information.

It shows a gradual increase in violent crime from 1981 which peaks in the mid 90's. Then shows a steady decline after gun control is introduced. (Page 57)

Gun violence shows a downward trend over the past decade. (Page 63)

Gun deaths also show a downward trend over the past decade. (Page 70)

Handgun offences (which are now banned) show a downward trend. (Page 71)

Offences involving replicas have gone up (Page71). Replicas won't hurt anyone, but it shows an appetite.

A separate report from the Scottish govt also highlight circumstances and motives. Most of the fire-arm crimes in Scotland involved friends, acquaintances and partners, with the main motive being rage. Presumably from a disagreement gone too far.

The amount of offences carried out by strangers, for personal gain (e.g. Robbery) were minimal. This shows it's not the armed criminal attacking you at home or in the street that's the main problem, it's the person you know who owns a weapon who presents the biggest risk. Alcohol also played a significant part.

The data does indeed support my conclusions.


My data isn't wrong.  Your data is incomplete.  You have moved the goalposts.  You started by stating that because of the gun laws in 1996 things have gotten better.  I demonstrated that was incorrect.  You then moved the goalposts to analyzing data from the 2000s.  No baseline or anything else to compare it to.  I am sorry but I am not buying the contention that "our gun violence has always been low, we then implemented gun restrictions it only went up a little bit.  This is proof that guns laws work." 


Your data is wrong because it covers total homicides, not gun homicides. And you accuse ME of moving the goalposts? I didn't deliberately omit those years, I cited a report using official figures. You produced a graph and admitted at the time you hadn't even researched its' accuracy.

The peak in 2003 in your data is down to a serial killing doctor who was killing his patients with a syringe over a 20 year period. The estimated number of about 250 victims were added in 2003 after he was convicted.

2004 contains 20 cockle pickers who were caught out and killed by an in-coming tide. They were illegal immigrants and their gang-master was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

2005 contains the 52 victims of the July 7th London bombings.

It's a bit disingenuous to include them all in a discussion about gun deaths. But if you want to discuss homicide in general the vast majority in this country are carried out using either knives or solid objects, such as bottles. People use what they have at hand. If more people carried guns, more guns would end up being used.

Glasgow in particular has a real problem with stabbings and knife culture around gangs. There are initiatives in place to help eradicate the problem and it's staring to show some signs of success. If we started giving the little arseholes easier access to guns, I shudder to think where we would end up.


OK.  I revise my statement. When gun laws are enacted, people find a different instrument to kill people.  I think we can agree on that. 

I go back to one of my original points.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  If there are no guns, people will find a different instrument.  The data from the UK fully supports this contention. 


You are correct. People will find a different instrument. However some instruments are more effective then others.

The data from the UK also show a person's chances of survival are considerably better if they are stabbed than if they are shot. Knives just don't kill people quite as efficiently as guns do.

Measures have also been put in place over here to help reduce knife crime. It is illegal to carry certain kinds in a public place without good reason and police are engaging with young guys in certain communities to help teach them about the risks involved. If they carry a knife they are statistically more likely to either use it on someone or become a victim of a stabbing themselves. A combination of education and a possible four year prison sentence for carrying a knife are beginning to show signs of success.

Also an increasing amount of bars, clubs and events are now using plastic bottles and mugs to reduce the amount of glass injuries.

The less weapons people have at hand when a situation deteriorates, the less chance someone has of losing their life.


Perhaps you should outlaw syringes and in coming tides as well. 
Logged
The Prole
Franchise Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 915


Perth, Scotland


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: January 03, 2013, 05:33:57 PM »


Your data is wrong.

This is an official govt report on crime in England and Wales.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary

Feel free to read it all, but there is a lot of data so I'll point out the relevant information.

It shows a gradual increase in violent crime from 1981 which peaks in the mid 90's. Then shows a steady decline after gun control is introduced. (Page 57)

Gun violence shows a downward trend over the past decade. (Page 63)

Gun deaths also show a downward trend over the past decade. (Page 70)

Handgun offences (which are now banned) show a downward trend. (Page 71)

Offences involving replicas have gone up (Page71). Replicas won't hurt anyone, but it shows an appetite.

A separate report from the Scottish govt also highlight circumstances and motives. Most of the fire-arm crimes in Scotland involved friends, acquaintances and partners, with the main motive being rage. Presumably from a disagreement gone too far.

The amount of offences carried out by strangers, for personal gain (e.g. Robbery) were minimal. This shows it's not the armed criminal attacking you at home or in the street that's the main problem, it's the person you know who owns a weapon who presents the biggest risk. Alcohol also played a significant part.

The data does indeed support my conclusions.


My data isn't wrong.  Your data is incomplete.  You have moved the goalposts.  You started by stating that because of the gun laws in 1996 things have gotten better.  I demonstrated that was incorrect.  You then moved the goalposts to analyzing data from the 2000s.  No baseline or anything else to compare it to.  I am sorry but I am not buying the contention that "our gun violence has always been low, we then implemented gun restrictions it only went up a little bit.  This is proof that guns laws work." 


Your data is wrong because it covers total homicides, not gun homicides. And you accuse ME of moving the goalposts? I didn't deliberately omit those years, I cited a report using official figures. You produced a graph and admitted at the time you hadn't even researched its' accuracy.

The peak in 2003 in your data is down to a serial killing doctor who was killing his patients with a syringe over a 20 year period. The estimated number of about 250 victims were added in 2003 after he was convicted.

2004 contains 20 cockle pickers who were caught out and killed by an in-coming tide. They were illegal immigrants and their gang-master was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

2005 contains the 52 victims of the July 7th London bombings.

It's a bit disingenuous to include them all in a discussion about gun deaths. But if you want to discuss homicide in general the vast majority in this country are carried out using either knives or solid objects, such as bottles. People use what they have at hand. If more people carried guns, more guns would end up being used.

Glasgow in particular has a real problem with stabbings and knife culture around gangs. There are initiatives in place to help eradicate the problem and it's staring to show some signs of success. If we started giving the little arseholes easier access to guns, I shudder to think where we would end up.


OK.  I revise my statement. When gun laws are enacted, people find a different instrument to kill people.  I think we can agree on that. 

I go back to one of my original points.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  If there are no guns, people will find a different instrument.  The data from the UK fully supports this contention. 


You are correct. People will find a different instrument. However some instruments are more effective then others.

The data from the UK also show a person's chances of survival are considerably better if they are stabbed than if they are shot. Knives just don't kill people quite as efficiently as guns do.

Measures have also been put in place over here to help reduce knife crime. It is illegal to carry certain kinds in a public place without good reason and police are engaging with young guys in certain communities to help teach them about the risks involved. If they carry a knife they are statistically more likely to either use it on someone or become a victim of a stabbing themselves. A combination of education and a possible four year prison sentence for carrying a knife are beginning to show signs of success.

Also an increasing amount of bars, clubs and events are now using plastic bottles and mugs to reduce the amount of glass injuries.

The less weapons people have at hand when a situation deteriorates, the less chance someone has of losing their life.


Perhaps you should outlaw syringes and in coming tides as well. 


I realise you are being facetious but I'll indulge you anyway.

We had a problem with escalating knife crime. We decided to do something about it.

I'm still able to bring a knife with me when I venture off into the mountains. I just don't need one when I visit a bar in the city.
Logged

kick em in the head
Guest
« Reply #48 on: January 03, 2013, 07:09:21 PM »


I realise you are being facetious but I'll indulge you anyway.

We had a problem with escalating knife crime. We decided to do something about it.

I'm still able to bring a knife with me when I venture off into the mountains. I just don't need one when I visit a bar in the city.

Doing something is not the same thing as making progress.  Despite all of the measures that the UK has implemented, homicides continue to rise. 
Logged
The Prole
Franchise Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 915


Perth, Scotland


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2013, 06:11:42 AM »


I realise you are being facetious but I'll indulge you anyway.

We had a problem with escalating knife crime. We decided to do something about it.

I'm still able to bring a knife with me when I venture off into the mountains. I just don't need one when I visit a bar in the city.

Doing something is not the same thing as making progress.  Despite all of the measures that the UK has implemented, homicides continue to rise. 

....and fall and rise and fall. Peaks and troughs. Regardless of what direction the trend is currently moving the fact remains the homicide rate over here remains relatively low. If we see a long term continual rise we at least attempt to do something about it.
Logged

TBrown4ever
Franchise Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1356



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2013, 06:25:57 AM »

If Reagan didn't close the loony bins we wouldn't be talking about gun control.

I've said before that I'm not for guns being outlawed but anyone involved in this argument has to admit that the fact that we have nowhere to lock up the many psycho's in our nation and the fact that anyone can go to certain states and buy an assault rifle as easy as they can a cheeseburger is just not a great mix.

Maybe we could pass bills punishing companies for shipping jobs overseas rather than signing trade agreements encouraging outsourcing that way we have less people idle with nothing but time on their hands. Or maybe we could cut our overbloated arms spending and spend that money on improving our crumbling nation rather than using drones to kill sheep hearders in the middle east and Sahara desert.

I find it disgusting that we have pretty much the same infrastructure we had back in the days of WWII while our military spending is about the same as the world's combined.

I know I got a bit off topic but I think it applies.
Logged
kick em in the head
Guest
« Reply #51 on: January 30, 2013, 08:37:35 AM »


I realise you are being facetious but I'll indulge you anyway.

We had a problem with escalating knife crime. We decided to do something about it.

I'm still able to bring a knife with me when I venture off into the mountains. I just don't need one when I visit a bar in the city.

Doing something is not the same thing as making progress.  Despite all of the measures that the UK has implemented, homicides continue to rise. 

....and fall and rise and fall. Peaks and troughs. Regardless of what direction the trend is currently moving the fact remains the homicide rate over here remains relatively low. If we see a long term continual rise we at least attempt to do something about it.

Nobody disputes that homicide rates remain low.  What is in dispute is why.  Your assertion that gun control helps is not something that the data support.  The data show that gun laws (at best) do not curb homicides.  "Doing something" is not the same as "doing something that works."  If you have data that suggest that gun laws curb gun violence, please provide it. 
Logged
mbraiders
Franchise Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 571


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2013, 05:55:10 PM »


I realise you are being facetious but I'll indulge you anyway.

We had a problem with escalating knife crime. We decided to do something about it.

I'm still able to bring a knife with me when I venture off into the mountains. I just don't need one when I visit a bar in the city.



Doing something is not the same thing as making progress.  Despite all of the measures that the UK has implemented, homicides continue to rise. 

....and fall and rise and fall. Peaks and troughs. Regardless of what direction the trend is currently moving the fact remains the homicide rate over here remains relatively low. If we see a long term continual rise we at least attempt to do something about it.

The UK and the US, to begin with, are 2 entirley different infrastructure DNAs. I wonder when the UK decided to outlaw guns for their citizens and went to confiscate them - What was the percentage of gun-owners to the non gun-owners? There was probably a huge gap between the two classes. That would not be the case here in the States. We are a young nation and the gun has been intricately woven into the fabric of our existence. Hell, it is written into our Constitution. Our forefathers (former British Colonists) had the foresight (obviously from experience) to see that this Government might get too big and try to infringe on our freedoms. Gettin back on topic, It would be a far more monumental task for the Feds to try a gun grab in this Country than, say, the UK or France, simply because the percentage between the two classes is a lot smaller. People here will die fighting for their right to own a gun before they let the gov't take it away. It seems to me that things are becoming too sterile in the UK. Banning this and banning that. Where does it end?
Logged
TBrown4ever
Franchise Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1356



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: February 04, 2013, 09:58:50 AM »

Hell, it is written into our Constitution. Our forefathers (former British Colonists) had the foresight (obviously from experience) to see that this Government might get too big and try to infringe on our freedoms.

Yep.

Then the private piggy bank took over the nation in 1913. Our freedoms were stripped in 2001 and continue to stripped even more today and guess what?

NOT ONE SHOT FIRED!  Undecided

Too bad our forefathers didn't have the foreknowledge of how TV would make us lazy and completely dumb us down. Grin
Logged
Raidersmojo
Franchise Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2888



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: February 09, 2013, 09:24:27 AM »


Your data is wrong.

This is an official govt report on crime in England and Wales.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary

Feel free to read it all, but there is a lot of data so I'll point out the relevant information.

It shows a gradual increase in violent crime from 1981 which peaks in the mid 90's. Then shows a steady decline after gun control is introduced. (Page 57)

Gun violence shows a downward trend over the past decade. (Page 63)

Gun deaths also show a downward trend over the past decade. (Page 70)

Handgun offences (which are now banned) show a downward trend. (Page 71)

Offences involving replicas have gone up (Page71). Replicas won't hurt anyone, but it shows an appetite.

A separate report from the Scottish govt also highlight circumstances and motives. Most of the fire-arm crimes in Scotland involved friends, acquaintances and partners, with the main motive being rage. Presumably from a disagreement gone too far.

The amount of offences carried out by strangers, for personal gain (e.g. Robbery) were minimal. This shows it's not the armed criminal attacking you at home or in the street that's the main problem, it's the person you know who owns a weapon who presents the biggest risk. Alcohol also played a significant part.

The data does indeed support my conclusions.


My data isn't wrong.  Your data is incomplete.  You have moved the goalposts.  You started by stating that because of the gun laws in 1996 things have gotten better.  I demonstrated that was incorrect.  You then moved the goalposts to analyzing data from the 2000s.  No baseline or anything else to compare it to.  I am sorry but I am not buying the contention that "our gun violence has always been low, we then implemented gun restrictions it only went up a little bit.  This is proof that guns laws work." 


Your data is wrong because it covers total homicides, not gun homicides. And you accuse ME of moving the goalposts? I didn't deliberately omit those years, I cited a report using official figures. You produced a graph and admitted at the time you hadn't even researched its' accuracy.

The peak in 2003 in your data is down to a serial killing doctor who was killing his patients with a syringe over a 20 year period. The estimated number of about 250 victims were added in 2003 after he was convicted.

2004 contains 20 cockle pickers who were caught out and killed by an in-coming tide. They were illegal immigrants and their gang-master was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

2005 contains the 52 victims of the July 7th London bombings.

It's a bit disingenuous to include them all in a discussion about gun deaths. But if you want to discuss homicide in general the vast majority in this country are carried out using either knives or solid objects, such as bottles. People use what they have at hand. If more people carried guns, more guns would end up being used.

Glasgow in particular has a real problem with stabbings and knife culture around gangs. There are initiatives in place to help eradicate the problem and it's staring to show some signs of success. If we started giving the little arseholes easier access to guns, I shudder to think where we would end up.


OK.  I revise my statement. When gun laws are enacted, people find a different instrument to kill people.  I think we can agree on that. 

I go back to one of my original points.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  If there are no guns, people will find a different instrument.  The data from the UK fully supports this contention. 


I can't believe people are disagreeing with your statistics and arguments, because you are spot on.

1. Criminals won't be turning in their guns once a ban is lifted
2. Bans only affect law abiding citizens
3. Mental health issues are a way larger part of this than is being led on.
4. In the U.K. they have low gun crime, but the HIGHEST amount of violent crime per capita, than the United States
5. Gun murder rates in Austrailia went down, but murder rates stayed the same, but different weapons were used.
6. If you want to kill someone you can use anything knife, baseball bat, fist, crowbar, etc. Are we banning these next?
7. "Banning" something is a simpletons solution to a complex problem. We banned (outlawed) Marijuana, crack, heroine, esctasy, etc. How readily available in each city are those? I can get the first delivered to my apartment within an hour.
8. Feinsteins bill just bans "cosmetics" of guns to make them "assault". For example. My mossberg tactical shotgun is legal under the Feinstein bill. Unless I put a pistol grip (that came with the gun) on it. If I put on the pistol grip the gun is instantly illegal. because its an "assault" weapon. The guns ability to fire hasn't changed, its not made lighter, the gun still fires its normal rounds, but it "looks" different, it "looks" like an
"assault" weapon.

Wish people could look at this with a clear and open mind and realize that a ban is useless and we need to focus our efforts on closing loop holes and looking at mental health.
Logged
kick em in the head
Guest
« Reply #55 on: February 09, 2013, 01:59:37 PM »


I can't believe people are disagreeing with your statistics and arguments, because you are spot on.




That is because it is an opinion argument.  My stance isn't factual. Prole's stance isn't factual.  There are far to many extraneous variables in play to assert anything as "fact."  The data shows no effect for gun control law but there are type I and type II errors and given the lack of scientific control for the data, it is completely possible that a type II error has occurred. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.254 seconds with 20 queries.