US Gun Laws

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

you've never debated with him before?

If you're arguing against a set of data showing progress from 1900 to 1996, why would you use 2009 figures?

Idiot boy.

[C0ckney]

ah bless. upset that you've once again been called on your disingenuous debating style.

why go you go back to trying to tell HC that motive = intent.

idiot.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Why go you go back? Try that again, but in English.

Quick recap-

1- Doc posts stats going "Ooooooo, England started out in 1900 with no gun laws, and after banning guns by 1996 their homicide rates had risen from 1.0 to 1.7!"

2- I ask why no US stats are offered as comparison, and US post stats from 1900 to 1990 to indicate why that might be. IE- They'd shot up much higher, from a similar starting point. Had a similar graph been available to 1996, I'd have posted that. It'd still be way higher than the UK figures. It was 7.4 per 100K in 1996.

So- in 1900 both the UK and US had little in the way of gun control

The UK introduces gun control, and rates rise 70% by 1996

The US doesn't, and rates rise by about 600% by 1996. Hence, I suggest, the author's failure to offer comparison over the range in Doc's article

Nothing disingenuous at all.

[MOBIUS]

Seems fair enough to me.

[giblets]

I see Albert isn't responding.

[MOBIUS]

Isn't that what they said about his treatment for insanity...

[Al B. Sure!]

Why go you go back? Try that again, but in English.

Quick recap-

1- Doc posts stats going "Ooooooo, England started out in 1900 with no gun laws, and after banning guns by 1996 their homicide rates had risen from 1.0 to 1.7!"

2- I ask why no US stats are offered as comparison, and US post stats from 1900 to 1990 to indicate why that might be. IE- They'd shot up much higher, from a similar starting point. Had a similar graph been available to 1996, I'd have posted that. It'd still be way higher than the UK figures. It was 7.4 per 100K in 1996.

So- in 1900 both the UK and US had little in the way of gun control

The UK introduces gun control, and rates rise 70% by 1996

The US doesn't, and rates rise by about 600% by 1996. Hence, I suggest, the author's failure to offer comparison over the range in Doc's article

Nothing disingenuous at all.

There's plenty disingenuous.

1) Doc's stats were disingenuous. So you felt it was appropriate to respond to his disingenuous data with more disingenuous data?
2) Like I said, your point still stands if you were using a more recent comparison between Britain and the US, so why not be honest about it?
3) You hinted at drug laws causing a spike in the homicide rate. But those same drug laws were present when the homicide rate promptly fell after the time period in the chart to 1960's pre-drug war levels.
4) The website you got that chart from misrepresents data to serve their political agenda and I question the trustworthiness of the data presented by such people to begin with. You seem to have no problem falling hook line and sinker for their disingenuous 'research'
5) Gribbler, **** you *******. shut the hell up. You are nothing.

[C0ckney]

1- Doc posts stats going "Ooooooo, England started out in 1900 with no gun laws, and after banning guns by 1996 their homicide rates had risen from 1.0 to 1.7!"

2- I ask why no US stats are offered as comparison, and US post stats from 1900 to 1990 to indicate why that might be. IE- They'd shot up much higher, from a similar starting point. Had a similar graph been available to 1996, I'd have posted that. It'd still be way higher than the UK figures. It was 7.4 per 100K in 1996.

So- in 1900 both the UK and US had little in the way of gun control

The UK introduces gun control, and rates rise 70% by 1996

The US doesn't, and rates rise by about 600% by 1996. Hence, I suggest, the author's failure to offer comparison over the range in Doc's article

Nothing disingenuous at all.

so docs posts some stats which give an incomplete and misleading picture, presumably to make a point and you respond by doing the same, again presumably to make a point. it's especially striking because the data you used goes right up to the point where US murder rate started to fall quite dramatically. you know what that looks like...

the data up the present day is easily available, so why not give the complete picture.

[Fake Boris]

But even with the complete picture, the data plays largely to his advantage.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Attempting to discern trends and associate them to gun ownership is fallacious (at least given the one and only set of data provided) in the time periods described.

For example, claims that murder rates increased 4-6 fold ignores simple realities that US population density increased dramatically (76M - 250M about a 300-400% increase in overall population density) in the 90+ years described while the British observed very mild population growth (47 M to 60 M about a 28% increae in population density).

While one may argue that the base line murder rate is greater due to gun ownership (although I suspect other varaibles having a higher degree of impact), the increase in rates seems counter intuitive to gun ownership. Presumably the 1900's forefathers owned guns in simlar proportions to citiznenry of today, for that arguement to be made one would have to show that gun ownership rates have increased to atempt to show some manner of causaility.

[Felch]

I'd bet that population density is more strongly correlated with murder rate than gun ownership is. Cities with strict anti-gun laws can still have high murder rates, while rural areas full of gun owners have relatively low murder rates.

[Al B. Sure!]

But even with the complete picture, the data plays largely to his advantage.

So why the hell was he not honest about it? Why not include the complete picture if it still proves his point? Why cherry-pick like he did?

Plus look at that chart. Look at how bold Prohibition and New Drug Laws are. Don't act like Bugs isn't also trying to make a second point that the drug war causes higher murder rates, even though the drug war has continued while homicide rates dropped to pre-drug war levels.

[giblets]

So why the hell was he not honest about it? Why not include the complete picture if it still proves his point? Why cherry-pick like he did?

Plus look at that chart. Look at how bold Prohibition and New Drug Laws are. Don't act like Bugs isn't also trying to make a second point that the drug war causes higher murder rates, even though the drug war has continued while homicide rates dropped to pre-drug war levels.

You're being really disingenuous by making these unprovable assumptions to make someone else look bad. The only point he made was that homicides increased by an even greater degree during the 20th century in the US than in Britain. Which makes attributing the increase in homicide in the UK to gun control look silly. He made a good point and you're just nitpicking because the graph isn't perfect. I guess that means there's nothing wrong with the point he was making if people can only respond by drawing attention away from it.

[Al B. Sure!]

You're being really disingenuous by making these unprovable assumptions to make someone else look bad. The only point he made was that homicides increased by an even greater degree during the 20th century in the US than in Britain. Which makes attributing the increase in homicide in the UK to gun control look silly.

Did I ever say gun control laws increased the homicide rate? That is so counter-intuitive it would take a lot for me to believe it.

[giblets]

Did I ever say gun control laws increased the homicide rate? That is so counter-intuitive it would take a lot for me to believe it.

So what is your point? You don't even disagree with Bugs, you just want to flame other users?