stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[vaylorie]

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

It would also explain why there is only a spike in the number of homicides rather than a consistent rise and eventual plateau which would then lead me to side with you as it was a very clear and consistent rise. But to make a point, generally in statistics if there is a spike in the data there is an outside force that isn't being represented throughout the data. In this case, world events.

If you remember in the 80's and 90's how crime in general was growing at an incredible pace and then later in the 90's is started suddenly, and almost inexplicably, dropping. This was across most of the US and is represented on the graph for DC. There are a ton of factors involved but none of those are gun restrictions. Increase in police force, increase in prison population, abortion legalization from years before, crack moving out of mainstream, etc.

Again, I get that there are literally hundreds of factors involved with crime rates on the up and down side, but the 'more guns cause more crime' component is just alarmist crap.

[Alarti0001]

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

Atari, your too smart for me. Your ability to read raw data and 'apply' them 'correctly' is astonishing. You could at least bring the argument to the level of causation vs. correlation since the data clearly depicts an increase in violent crime after a gun ban was enabled. By the way, did you happen to look up data from before and after the gun ban went into effect or are you talking about a 3 year reduction in overall crime that has nothing to do with a gun ban that was implemented in the 90s?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What about in D.C. when they banned handuns?
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is the crime of Cherry picking. You picked a localized statistic. When you want to show trends you should broaden your scope.


Referring to DC charts you are trying to tell me that the effect of handguns being banned didnt start affecting the statistics for 10 years? Do you have a functioning brain?


Referring to the UK charts..... again it doesnt show the RATES. From 1991 to 2001 the population increased by 1.1million. From 2001-2004 the UK population increased by another 1million. That easily explains the # differences. Again you need rates not raw numbers


Honestly, I feel like I am arguing with children.

[OforOppression]

Here's an idea.

You say that hammers and such kill more than guns.

Why don't you use hammers and such to protect your homes, instead, if they're a more lethal weapon???

[vaylorie]

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

Here's an idea.

You say that hammers and such kill more than guns.

Why don't you use hammers and such to protect your homes, instead, if they're a more lethal weapon???

Moron, it's not that they are a more lethal weapon, it is that they are used to kill more people. If the logic is really 'guns kill so many people so lets get rid of them', then we should consider these items also. Your comprehension is top notch.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Referring to DC charts you are trying to tell me that the effect of handguns being banned didnt start affecting the statistics for 10 years? Do you have a functioning brain?

No, I'm telling you that gun bans don't reduce crime as is shown in the data. Thank you for making my point.

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Referring to the UK charts..... again it doesnt show the RATES. From 1991 to 2001 the population increased by 1.1million. From 2001-2004 the UK population increased by another 1million. That easily explains the # differences. Again you need rates not raw numbers

So you wouldn't expect to see a significant / marked decrease in violent crimes if guns were indeed the problem?

Also, of course I used a localized statistic. If I wanted to show a trend of the entire US, I would use data representative of the entire US. If I wanted to show the effect that a local gun ban in D.C. had, should I use 1) D.C. data or 2) All US data? If you can't figure that out that you are even stupider than your posts make you seem.

One more. If I wanted to see the impact of a gun ban in Britain, would I use 1) official government crime statistics for the region in question (i.e. Britain), or 2) worldwide violent crime statistics.

Thank you for playing.

[patriot1776]

im not a wingnut im a single issue voter

[Alarti0001]

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

No, I'm telling you that gun bans don't reduce crime as is shown in the data. Thank you for making my point.




So you wouldn't expect to see a significant / marked decrease in violent crimes if guns were indeed the problem?

Also, of course I used a localized statistic. If I wanted to show a trend of the entire US, I would use data representative of the entire US. If I wanted to show the effect that a local gun ban in D.C. had, should I use 1) D.C. data or 2) All US data? If you can't figure that out that you are even stupider than your posts make you seem.

One more. If I wanted to see the impact of a gun ban in Britain, would I use 1) official government crime statistics for the region in question (i.e. Britain), or 2) worldwide violent crime statistics.

Thank you for playing.

Your data didn't actually show that.

So basically, you are completely lost, you have no point, and you are mad?

Your data wasn't representative of anything you were trying to prove. There was 0 correlation.

Good job you succeeded in demonstrating to the educated here that you are clueless. I am sure patriot and hatelores will eat up your pretty graphs though. Good company you keep haha.

[Hitchens]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gor...a-attac,30860/

[Ahldagor]

who the fuck cares? so we won't have extended magazines or whatever or assault rifles. shit got jumped on quick as fuck by the media cause congress once again failed in doing something that would actually help the vast majority of people in the "insert stupid dramatic adjective" solution to the "fiscal cliff" which needs to happen. best way to reduce debt is to increase income and decrease spending, but can't take a 1% hit on growth even though most likely outcome is sustainable growth in two to three years, nope nope can't have people makin more money all around....i forgot where i was going with this.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your data didn't actually show that.

So basically, you are completely lost, you have no point, and you are mad?

Your data wasn't representative of anything you were trying to prove. There was 0 correlation.

Good job you succeeded in demonstrating to the educated here that you are clueless. I am sure patriot and hatelores will eat up your pretty graphs though. Good company you keep haha.

So I take it this is your way of saying that I was right and you were wrong? How embarrassing for you. Good luck in your future endeavors, i wish you well.