Re: GTA: San Andreas gets AO rating!
- From: max <maxicon13@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:58:16 GMT
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:49:43 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Thusly max <maxicon13@xxxxxxxxx> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>Whatever you say and in however ways you try to say it the fact is that
>>>cars were produced in order to ferry people from a to b in a more
>>>efficient manner and that is their main purpose. Now why were guns
>>>originally made?
>
>>What does intent have to do with the results?
>
>Everything?
>
>>Do you think the
>>survivors care about intent?
>
>Irrelevant much?
>But yeah, I *DO* think they care whether their loved one died in an
>accident or was murdered. I know I would care. You wouldn't?
You're welcome to your opinion. I would not feel any better about my
family being killed by a drunk driver versus an armed robber (for
instance), and if it happened to me, I would still be just as dead.
Personally, I feel the penalties for drunk driving should be harsh,
just like for gun violence and any violent crime.
>>Not only that, but people who kill and injure with cars are frequently
>>allowed to drive again with no concerns or limitations. Logical?
>
>Yes it is, you're simply trying to whitewash murder through appeal to
>accident.
IMO, dead is dead, whether from a drunk's carelessness or not. Your
response didn't address whether you believe it's OK to let killer
drivers drive again, or how many times you believe they should be
allowed to kill before something is done about it. Is it okay for
them to keep killing, as long as it's not on purpose?
>Or is your bizarre claim that everyone who kills or injure other with
>a car does so on purpose? Or that killing or injuring other is the
>purpose of cars?
>No, you're simply trying your hand at misdirection.
Speaking of misdirection, please cite where I made any of those
claims. I realize it's much easier to argue against fabricated
absurdities, but if you want to continue the discussion, please try to
pay attention and read more carefully.
>>The point of the comparison is that people are willing to accept the
>>death and destruction caused by cars, which is far higher than that
>>caused by guns, because they would be personally inconvenienced by
>>stringent rules on cars and driving.
>
>Yes. However, if cars were banned, it would be a severe blow to
>society. If all privately owned guns were to suddenly disappear, the
>only effect would be a lowered homicide rate. The cost to society of
>banning privately owned guns is not just zero, it translates to an
>actual GAIN.
>So not only is your comparison bizarre, it's disingenious.
So, you're willing to accept a certain number of deaths and injuries
for the good of society; it's really just a matter of where you draw
the line. I'm glad we got that out of the way.
Did you look at the graphs in the cites you posted below?
When guns were banned in the UK, the homicide rate rose. Likewise,
when they were banned in Australia, the handgun death rate fell, but
the overall homicide rate increased. There is absolutely no data that
I know of showing that banning handguns decreases the homicide rate.
If you have some, please show it.
I might ad that appealing to an impossible situation (all privately
owned guns disappearing) to support your argument is a wee bit
disingenious, if I can borrow a page from your book. Taking away the
defensive weapons of law-abiding citizens while criminals still have
them leads to a rather predictable situation.
>>Note that I didn't call for the banning of cars, just applied rigorous
>>logic to a similar situation.
>
>You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face.
Hmm... That's quite an impressive comeback. I especially like the
deft use of statistics and data.
>>On a different tack, you are aware that the violent crime and gun
>>crime rates in the UK have increased steadily as guns have been banned
>>(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-537568,00.html ), while the
>>violent crime rate and gun crimes have decreased steadily in the US
>>for decades, even as more guns are bought every year by law-abiding
>>citizens?
>
>1) Yes, in one year crime involving guns, including soft air guns,
>jumped 12% (to a whopping 10000; there were 572 serious injuries
>involving firearms. Both figures are far lower than what is reported
>annually in New York alone).
>Why? At least partly because it was the year the UK introduced a
>NATIONAL CRIME REPORTING STANDARD.
Whatever. I'm just going by the official figures released by your
government. Your excuses are duly noted.
>2) Have you checked the actual LEVELS? Please do. Insinuating that the
>murder rates of UK and US are comparable is ridiculous, but only
>reporting trends and not actual levels is a tried and true propaganda
>method, which is of course why you're using it.
Sorry, it's that comprehension thing again. I didn't say or insinuate
that they were comparable. I stated that UK violent crime and
homicide rates have increased steadily over the last decade, while US
rates have decreased steadily over the same period. The cites you
posted below support this statement explicitly.
This is with roughly 5 million guns per year sold in the US over that
same period. This indicates that more guns do not result in higher
rates of gun crime. A neophyte with statistics would argue that more
guns reduce gun crime, but correlation is not causation.
>UK: 19 homicides per million inhabitants and year (and this was 2003,
>more on that later).
>US: 81 homicides per million inhabitants and year (2002).
>
>As you're no doubt going to ask for citations, be my guest:
>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf
>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm
>(sorry I don't have as hard-hitting sources like your newsrags.)
>
>>In 2002, the UN found the UK to have the highest crime rate among the
>>world's leading economies, and in 2003 the UK was the most violent
>>country in western Europe.
>
>Haha... Misleading much? You're doing exactly what you're accusing
>Michael Moore of doing: lying through misdirection and out-of-context
>quotes. Liar liar, pants on fire.
As you may recall, I cited UK media stories that stated this, where
the entire article can be read. If you have a problem with the
veracity of them, please take it up with them. Do you have data to
refute the UN's report?
>In 2003 the UK was the most violent country in western europe - with a
>homicide rate 25% of the US average.
>
>But still, howcome UK got such a high rating in 2003? Homicides, after
>all, have always been reported as homicides.
>To no small part because that was the year Dr Harold Shipman was found
>guilty of 172 cases of murder.
>
>Yes, the murder rate in western europe, including the UK, are so low
>that 172 murders skews the statistics.
The USA definitely has a problem with violent crime, there's no doubt,
but it's clearly not caused by guns or other inanimate objects, but by
social issues. This should be obvious in the UK as well, where crime
rates are rising steadily, also due to social issues.
The UK government, having failed to control rising crime rates by
banning guns, is now turning their attention to knives. According to
your data, hitting/kicking and strangulation follow closely after
knives, and exceed guns as a cause of death. Do you remove people's
hands and feet next, or do you step back and look for a root cause
solution, rather than an ineffective attack on tools? Time for a
different approach yet? Nah, just keep letting the crime rate rise
while disarming the law-abiding citizen.
>>Whatever you're doing, it's not working. Maybe it's time to try
>>something different. You'll forgive me if I don't listen to your
>>dogmatic propaganda that isn't supported by data.
>
>FFS, at least be semi-honest and state that you want easy access to
>guns _even though_ easy access to guns means that a bunch of people
>more get killed every year.
There you go again, claiming something I never said.
For the record, I want law-abiding citizens to be able to choose for
themselves whether they can own a gun and take responsibility for
their own defense if they want. Where I live, you have to go through
safety certification, an FBI background check, and a 10 day waiting
period. Easy? Maybe easier than where you live.
You're welcome to your own choice. Oh, wait, your government has made
it for you. Never mind.
>Incidentally, the number of registered guns per 100000 inhabitants in
>the US is roughly twice that of Switzerland (including the Swiss
>army), 5 times that of Australia, and in the region of 15 times that
>of the UK, and in fact the number of homicides *using guns* per 100000
>inhabitants correlates quite well.
>In case anyone had gotten a different impression from the dogmatic
>propaganda spewed in this thread.
You want correlations? If you look at the number of homicides overall
and the number of gun homicides in the US over the last decade, they
have dropped steadily. The number of privately owned guns has risen
steadily in that same time period. That's what's called a negative
correlation. Definitely not causation, but it proves that more guns
do not cause more gun deaths.
This is from one of your links:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm
Thanks for playing, and for providing the supporting data. If you get
anything more compelling, I'd love to see it. Please read more
carefully in the future, though, as repeating myself is getting a bit
tiresome.
max
.
- References:
- Re: GTA: San Andreas gets AO rating!
- From: Mean_Chlorine
- Re: GTA: San Andreas gets AO rating!
- Prev by Date: Re: FarCry and Fx6600GT
- Next by Date: Re: A database of videogame sh!tters.
- Previous by thread: Re: GTA: San Andreas gets AO rating!
- Next by thread: Re: San Andreas gets AO rating!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
