What did this girl have that she needed?

[pErvinalia]

But what you don't seem to understand is that you don't know if more guns equal less crime. You just assume it due to your retarded understanding of statistics and logic. So when you keep saying: more guns equals less crime, FACT! You come across as mentally retarded.

[pErvinalia]

Anyone maintaining that there is such a need is merely a hoplophobe who puts ideology over facts.

That's pretty ironic coming from the biggest ideologue on these boards.

[Seth]

Anyone maintaining that there is such a need is merely a hoplophobe who puts ideology over facts.

That's pretty ironic coming from the biggest ideologue on these boards.

Ah, but I'm not an ideologue, I'm just smarter than you are and I'm right. To a hoplophobic ideologue that can appear to be ideological, but it's not. The ideologue's interpretation of the positions of others is commonly tainted by their own blindered ideology, as in your and BG and Jonno's case.

[Seth]

But what you don't seem to understand is that you don't know if more guns equal less crime.

You're stating causation. I'm not stating causation, I'm stating correlation. More guns, less crime. Fact. More guns =/= more crime. Fact.

Logical syllogism:

P1 Gun murders in the US are in decline.
P2 Tens of millions more guns have been added to US society.
C1 Adding guns to US society does not cause an increase in gun murders. (negative correlation)

This syllogism is logically (and factually) true.

P3 Gun murders in the US are in decline
P4 Tens of millions of guns have been added to US society
C1 Adding guns to US society causes an increase in gun murders

This syllogism is logically (and factually) untrue.

Ergo, more guns, less crime.

[pErvinalia]

Anyone maintaining that there is such a need is merely a hoplophobe who puts ideology over facts.

That's pretty ironic coming from the biggest ideologue on these boards.

Ah, but I'm not an ideologue, I'm just smarter than you are and I'm right.

ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum

[pErvinalia]

But what you don't seem to understand is that you don't know if more guns equal less crime.

You're stating causation. I'm not stating causation, I'm stating correlation.

The problem is that you are indeed implying causation as you are using it as a definitive point in your argument. If you were only using it in a correlative sense, then you couldn't use it in your argument to support your point (or refute BG's point; other than to point out that he too might be mixing correlation with causation).

More guns, less crime. Fact. More guns =/= more crime. Fact.

Wow. And more toothpaste, less crime. FACT! See how retarded one looks when they try and use correlation in place of causation?

Logical syllogism:

P1 Gun murders in the US are in decline.
P2 Tens of millions more guns have been added to US society.
C1 Adding guns to US society does not cause an increase in gun murders. (negative correlation)

This syllogism is logically (and factually) true.

P3 Gun murders in the US are in decline
P4 Tens of millions of guns have been added to US society
C1 Adding guns to US society causes an increase in gun murders

This syllogism is logically (and factually) untrue.

Ergo, more guns, less crime.

The problem with this logic is that it assumes there is only one cause of a change in the rate of gun murders. It's still only a correlation. Just like toothpaste and guns. It's a useless rhetorical device. Unless you assume everyone else is as stupid as you are.

[Seth]

But what you don't seem to understand is that you don't know if more guns equal less crime.

You're stating causation. I'm not stating causation, I'm stating correlation.

The problem is that you are indeed implying causation as you are using it as a definitive point in your argument.

No I'm not, you're just misinterpreting my statement that way because you want to.

If you were only using it in a correlative sense, then you couldn't use it in your argument to support your point (or refute BG's point; other than to point out that he too might be mixing correlation with causation).

Why not? It's a simple statement of observed and well-documented facts: More guns, less crime. It absolutely refutes BG's "more guns, more crime" theory.

More guns, less crime. Fact. More guns =/= more crime. Fact.

Wow. And more toothpaste, less crime. FACT! See how retarded one looks when they try and use correlation in place of causation?

That may or may not be the case, but that's entirely irrelevant to disproving BG's claim. All we need to know to refute his claim is to look at the number of guns added to the US society (tens or hundreds of millions) and the trajectory of the crime rates in the US (down) and his thesis is destroyed utterly. The reasons or causes for that correlation are not relevant. That's BECAUSE BG is assuming causation without correlation. He argues that other nations have lower "gun murder" rates and then he assigns a causal link between stricter gun control and lower "gun murder" rates. But even the experience of Australia belies this hypothesis because the experts who study such things in Australia admit that the gun ban and collection and destruction of hundreds of thousands of guns has had no identifiable effect on crime rates in Australia.

In the US, exactly the opposite is true. Guns have been added by the millions and crime continues to decline. I'm not speculating right now on causation, I'm merely pointing out that BG's hypothesis is disproven by those facts.

Logical syllogism:

P1 Gun murders in the US are in decline.
P2 Tens of millions more guns have been added to US society.
C1 Adding guns to US society does not cause an increase in gun murders. (negative correlation)

This syllogism is logically (and factually) true.

P3 Gun murders in the US are in decline
P4 Tens of millions of guns have been added to US society
C1 Adding guns to US society causes an increase in gun murders

This syllogism is logically (and factually) untrue.

Ergo, more guns, less crime.

The problem with this logic is that it assumes there is only one cause of a change in the rate of gun murders.

No it doesn't. It merely demonstrates that the variable "guns" does not affect the variable "crime rates."

It's still only a correlation. Just like toothpaste and guns. It's a useless rhetorical device. Unless you assume everyone else is as stupid as you are.

It's an observable fact. That we may not be able to precisely identify why crime is dropping is not relevant to the fact that adding guns to society does not cause an increase in crime as BG alleges.

As for stupidity, unfortunately given your example I'm forced to assume that you are far more stupid than you think I am.

[pErvinalia]

But what you don't seem to understand is that you don't know if more guns equal less crime.

You're stating causation. I'm not stating causation, I'm stating correlation.

The problem is that you are indeed implying causation as you are using it as a definitive point in your argument.

No I'm not, you're just misinterpreting my statement that way because you want to.

If you were only using it in a correlative sense, then you couldn't use it in your argument to support your point (or refute BG's point; other than to point out that he too might be mixing correlation with causation).

Why not? It's a simple statement of observed and well-documented facts: More guns, less crime. It absolutely refutes BG's "more guns, more crime" theory.

This is what you don't get. It absolutely doesn't refute BG's claim, as it is only CORRELATIVE, not causative. To refute BG's claim, you'd either have to show that he's showing a correlation not a causation, or show an actual causation yourself.

More guns, less crime. Fact. More guns =/= more crime. Fact.

Wow. And more toothpaste, less crime. FACT! See how retarded one looks when they try and use correlation in place of causation?

That may or may not be the case,

It is the case. You look retarded.

but that's entirely irrelevant to disproving BG's claim. All we need to know to refute his claim is to look at the number of guns added to the US society (tens or hundreds of millions) and the trajectory of the crime rates in the US (down) and his thesis is destroyed utterly.

It's absolutely not, because more guns might have added to crime, but the net downturn in crime could be due to enforcement, education, regulation, etc etc. Essentially, what BG could be saying is that with less guns your crime rate would have fallen further. This is the point you don't seem to get. Whether he's right or wrong isn't refuted by you using a correlation in place of a causation.

In the US, exactly the opposite is true. Guns have been added by the millions and crime continues to decline. I'm not speculating right now on causation, I'm merely pointing out that BG's hypothesis is disproven by those facts.

Except that it isn't, as explained above.

Logical syllogism:

P1 Gun murders in the US are in decline.
P2 Tens of millions more guns have been added to US society.
C1 Adding guns to US society does not cause an increase in gun murders. (negative correlation)

This syllogism is logically (and factually) true.

P3 Gun murders in the US are in decline
P4 Tens of millions of guns have been added to US society
C1 Adding guns to US society causes an increase in gun murders

This syllogism is logically (and factually) untrue.

Ergo, more guns, less crime.

The problem with this logic is that it assumes there is only one cause of a change in the rate of gun murders.

No it doesn't. It merely demonstrates that the variable "guns" does not affect the variable "crime rates."

It's still only a correlation. Just like toothpaste and guns. It's a useless rhetorical device. Unless you assume everyone else is as stupid as you are.

It's an observable fact. That we may not be able to precisely identify why crime is dropping is not relevant to the fact that adding guns to society does not cause an increase in crime as BG alleges.

Unfortunately you don't know that. It doesn't cause an increase net crime. But it might indeed cause an increase in crime.

[Seth]

But what you don't seem to understand is that you don't know if more guns equal less crime.

You're stating causation. I'm not stating causation, I'm stating correlation.

The problem is that you are indeed implying causation as you are using it as a definitive point in your argument.

No I'm not, you're just misinterpreting my statement that way because you want to.

If you were only using it in a correlative sense, then you couldn't use it in your argument to support your point (or refute BG's point; other than to point out that he too might be mixing correlation with causation).

Why not? It's a simple statement of observed and well-documented facts: More guns, less crime. It absolutely refutes BG's "more guns, more crime" theory.

This is what you don't get. It absolutely doesn't refute BG's claim, as it is only CORRELATIVE, not causative. To refute BG's claim, you'd either have to show that he's showing a correlation not a causation, or show an actual causation yourself.

The facts show that BG is stating neither correlation nor causation. I don't have to show causation for my argument to defeat BG's argument, I merely need to show that his conclusions are logically faulty, and they are.

More guns, less crime. QED.

More guns, less crime. Fact. More guns =/= more crime. Fact.

Wow. And more toothpaste, less crime. FACT! See how retarded one looks when they try and use correlation in place of causation?

That may or may not be the case,

It is the case. You look retarded.

I've not seen any evidence of such a causative link.

but that's entirely irrelevant to disproving BG's claim. All we need to know to refute his claim is to look at the number of guns added to the US society (tens or hundreds of millions) and the trajectory of the crime rates in the US (down) and his thesis is destroyed utterly.

It's absolutely not, because more guns might have added to crime, but the net downturn in crime could be due to enforcement, education, regulation, etc etc.

"Might have" doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid. More guns, less crime. If you think that more guns = more crime, then it's up to you to prove it. Neither you nor BG has done so.

Essentially, what BG could be saying is that with less guns your crime rate would have fallen further.

Goalpost shifting. That's not what he said.

This is the point you don't seem to get. Whether he's right or wrong isn't refuted by you using a correlation in place of a causation.

Yes, it is. More guns, less crime. Not more guns, more crime. Neither of you has provided a scintilla of evidence that more guns has resulted in more crime in the US. Your supposition doesn't constitute evidence, it's an argument that's refuted by the undisputed facts.

More guns, less crime.

Unfortunately you don't know that. It doesn't cause an increase net crime. But it might indeed cause an increase in crime.

Then you will have to prove this assertion with reliable data. Even BG hasn't been able to come up with such data. The closest he came was misquoting a research paper that suggested at one point that "shall issue" laws caused a small increase in some forms of property crime. But when you read the actual paper, you find that the authors found that they could not draw a supportable conclusion that "shall issue' laws increase crime.

So, until you prove your claim, my refutation stands: More guns, less crime.

[pErvinalia]

You're stating causation. I'm not stating causation, I'm stating correlation.

The problem is that you are indeed implying causation as you are using it as a definitive point in your argument.

No I'm not, you're just misinterpreting my statement that way because you want to.

If you were only using it in a correlative sense, then you couldn't use it in your argument to support your point (or refute BG's point; other than to point out that he too might be mixing correlation with causation).

Why not? It's a simple statement of observed and well-documented facts: More guns, less crime. It absolutely refutes BG's "more guns, more crime" theory.

This is what you don't get. It absolutely doesn't refute BG's claim, as it is only CORRELATIVE, not causative. To refute BG's claim, you'd either have to show that he's showing a correlation not a causation, or show an actual causation yourself.

The facts show that BG is stating neither correlation nor causation. I don't have to show causation for my argument to defeat BG's argument, I merely need to show that his conclusions are logically faulty, and they are.

More guns, less crime. QED.

More guns, less crime. Fact. More guns =/= more crime. Fact.

Wow. And more toothpaste, less crime. FACT! See how retarded one looks when they try and use correlation in place of causation?

That may or may not be the case,

It is the case. You look retarded.

I've not seen any evidence of such a causative link.

but that's entirely irrelevant to disproving BG's claim. All we need to know to refute his claim is to look at the number of guns added to the US society (tens or hundreds of millions) and the trajectory of the crime rates in the US (down) and his thesis is destroyed utterly.

It's absolutely not, because more guns might have added to crime, but the net downturn in crime could be due to enforcement, education, regulation, etc etc.

"Might have" doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid. More guns, less crime. If you think that more guns = more crime, then it's up to you to prove it. Neither you nor BG has done so.

Essentially, what BG could be saying is that with less guns your crime rate would have fallen further.

Goalpost shifting. That's not what he said.

This is the point you don't seem to get. Whether he's right or wrong isn't refuted by you using a correlation in place of a causation.

Yes, it is. More guns, less crime. Not more guns, more crime. Neither of you has provided a scintilla of evidence that more guns has resulted in more crime in the US. Your supposition doesn't constitute evidence, it's an argument that's refuted by the undisputed facts.

More guns, less crime.

Unfortunately you don't know that. It doesn't cause an increase net crime. But it might indeed cause an increase in crime.

Then you will have to prove this assertion with reliable data.

You really don't get it. There's nothing more I can add to what I've written already. It clearly shows how you use of correlation doesn't disprove BG's statement. I don't have to "prove this assertion", as I didn't make it. It's a subset of possible realities. If you want to disprove it, you have to show a causation that disproves it, or show that BG is mixing correlation with causation. But I don't think he is, as, via my explanation above, it can be eminently reasonable to say that crime would have fallen further had there been less guns. That case allows for BG's statement to be correct. There was more crime because of more guns. You can't disprove his hypothesis by appealing to a correlation. It's obviously going to be hard for BG to definitely prove this thesis, but he does have inter-country statistics which show that the less guns a country has, the less gun crime it has. As with any social science, you are never going to get definitive proof either way. But as a good rationalist, you should be willing to accept compelling evidence constituting a strong case.

Even BG hasn't been able to come up with such data. The closest he came was misquoting a research paper that suggested at one point that "shall issue" laws caused a small increase in some forms of property crime. But when you read the actual paper, you find that the authors found that they could not draw a supportable conclusion that "shall issue' laws increase crime.

I don't actually care about your debate with BG. I'm just pointing out your logical failings.

So, until you prove your claim, my refutation stands: More guns, less crime.

Great. And mine stands too: More toothpaste, less crime. FACT! Therefore it can't be guns (according to Seth logic).

[Seth]

You really don't get it. There's nothing more I can add to what I've written already.

There certainly isn't. Bullshit remains bullshit regardless of how deep you pile it.

It clearly shows how you use of correlation doesn't disprove BG's statement. I don't have to "prove this assertion", as I didn't make it. It's a subset of possible realities.

If you're asserting it, the burden of proof is upon you.

If you want to disprove it, you have to show a causation that disproves it, or show that BG is mixing correlation with causation.

No I don't. You have made a claim, now it's up to you to support it with evidence.

But I don't think he is, as, via my explanation above, it can be eminently reasonable to say that crime would have fallen further had there been less guns. That case allows for BG's statement to be correct.

Goalpost shifting.

There was more crime because of more guns.

More crime than what? The evidence shows that where guns are banned the violent crime rates are much higher, and where CCW is allowed, violent crime rates are markedly lower.

You can't disprove his hypothesis by appealing to a correlation.

Of course I can. More guns, less crime.

It's obviously going to be hard for BG to definitely prove this thesis, but he does have inter-country statistics which show that the less guns a country has, the less gun crime it has.

And what's the delta of violent crime in those countries?

As with any social science, you are never going to get definitive proof either way. But as a good rationalist, you should be willing to accept compelling evidence constituting a strong case.

As should you. More guns in the US, less crime in the US. The research has been done and the results are definitive. BG's only recourse to that research, which has been repeated time and time again and has been accepted as valid by more than 40 state legislatures that have instituted "shall issue" concealed carry laws over more than 25 years of review and analysis, is to engage in ad hominem tu quoque fallacy pandering.

And then there's the simple fact that this issue is not a statistical matter in the first place and the entire argument is just a red herring.

As I've said many times, the individual's right to personal safety through effective self defense is not subject to statistical apportionment. Therefore it doesn't matter what the absolute crime numbers are or what the trajectory of crime is, each and every individual on earth has an unalienable and absolute right to self defense and the right to carry those arms that are best suited to that defense, irrespective of the impacts of universal armament on others because criminals use guns to commit crimes.

No one gets to tell an individual that because it's unlikely that they will be criminally victimized that they can ethically or morally be denied the right to go about armed in anticipation of being victimized. The individual's right to do so in an otherwise peaceable manner that causes no harm to anyone other than an attacker is absolute, unless and until the person demonstrates he or she is incapable of exercising that right properly and safely.

[pErvinalia]

Gaah... there's no penetrating your thickness. As I said, I can't make it any clearer than I already have. You apparently can't even understand simple logic, let alone complex logic.

[Blind groper]

The University of Chicago's annual Social Survey shows very clearly that the number of gun owners has been dropping over the past 30 years. Since one gun crime is caused by one gun owner, regardless of how many guns he/she owns, then the number of gun owners is the important statistic, not how many guns he/she owns.

Fewer gun owners = less gun crime. FACT!!

[Seth]

Gaah... there's no penetrating your thickness. As I said, I can't make it any clearer than I already have. You apparently can't even understand simple logic, let alone complex logic.

Simple logic is simple: More guns, less crime. Fact.

More guns, more crime. Falsehood.

[JimC]

In my hey-day I had 4 guns, all except the shotgun bought second hand (I had a shooter's licence back then)

* a Ruger .22 semi-automatic
* a 12 gauge pump-action shotgun (a Mossburg)
* a WW2 vntage M1 Garand
* a 303/250 bolt action Mauser with a scope

I gave up the Ruger and the Garand in the great gun buy back, and actually got more back than I paid for them!

Not long after I sold the other two as well, as my deteriorating eyesight made shooting less pleasurable... But I did have fun at the time.

So, BG, I was one of those lunatic gun owners with multiple guns!