stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Vellatri]

Humerox, have you found anything to back up your claim that overall violent crimes have decreased in Australia since the gun ban? Anything at all? The sources you provided said nothing of the sort. Lying doesn't help your case much.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Minor but important correction: this is not a conditional statement. It's a prefatory clause.

Not necessarily so.

Clause and Effect.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Humerox, have you found anything to back up your claim that overall violent crimes have decreased in Australia since the gun ban? Anything at all? The sources you provided said nothing of the sort. Lying doesn't help your case much.

Good...now I know you've read them.

My claim never was that overall violent crimes decreased in Australia since the gun ban. I've gone to great lengths to establish my position throughout multiple pages of two threads here.

Yet you guys still want to use an *ahem* straw-man.

Your claim that if mass murders committed by firearm stop yet overall violence remains the same or increases, it's inconsequential. There are many problems with that statement...not the least of which is that you're saying that banning assault weapons causes increased overall violence...because there is no proof of that.

Nevertheless...I'm not concerned with overall violence and never have been in discussing this issue.

[Billbike]

The ban will have little change on "gun crimes".

Guns are not legal in Mexico, safe place amirite?

Oh hey let's ban cars so all those drunk drivers won't kill anymore people.

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not necessarily so.

Clause and Effect.

Is this a joke? You're not aware of the SCOTUS ruling on D.C. vs Heller? From the court's opinion (1)(a):
"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

[Humerox]

And the third source does...but to be fair I never counted that source as being entirely credible. I'd have to research it before I said that.

Regarding assaults in Australia:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

It is true, as claimed by gun possession advocates, that the assault rate has increased a lot since the ban/buyback. But the ban/buyback cannot be blamed for this since the rate was increasing at essentially the same rate before the ban/buyback (and the other changes) began. The rate did not rise as fast for '99 and 2000, but then rose even faster than before for '01 and '02. The ban/buyback did not have a definite effect of any kind on the assault rate—neither improving it nor making it worse. It is possible that the small declines for '99 and 2000 were caused by the ban/buyback and other changes made at the same time. But, if so, something must have completely counteracted that in '01 and '02.

But like I said...that's not my argument. That's an argument you're attempting to force me to make.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is this a joke? You're not aware of the SCOTUS ruling on D.C. vs Heller? From the court's opinion (1)(a):
"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

I'm aware of it. I'm saying it may not be correct.

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My claim never was that overall violent crimes decreased in Australia since the gun ban.

Good thing you can't go back and edit your posts.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The stats in your link say overall violence has increased. the stats in all 3 of mine state that overall violence has remained relatively unchanged or decreased slightly.


If you're not saying the stats conflict, what are we arguing about?

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where? You never pointed out any such "overall violence" item.

I was pointing out that Australia experienced a decrease in murder comparable with the U.S., where no such ban exists. At the same time, it experienced an increase in violent crime while the U.S. experienced a decrease. It's all in the first post.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you'd read what I linked you'd find the overall violence statistics in those studies.

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They say nothing about overall violence decreasing. Furthermore, the onus is not on me to prove a negative. If the "facts" are so obvious, you should be able to pull them out front and center.

[Humerox]

Yeah...you drew me into that argument for a little while. I thought about entertaining a constructive argument for it, but again...I could care less.

[Vellatri]

Of course you were drawn in; it was the entire point of my original post. Glad you could man up and admit that you were wrong.