Hermit wrote:Seth wrote:Hermit wrote:Seth wrote:More guns, less crime, whether the cause is more guns or not, the effects are undeniable.
If more guns are not the cause of less crime, one cannot validly say that less crime is an effect of more guns.
True
I bet you still maintain that more guns does equal less crime, though, don't you? Murder rate dropping, blah blah blah.
So let's look at that shall we?
Nice strawman attempt.
Would you agree that the drop in murder rates you so happily mention at the drop of a hat ought to be reflected in a commensurate increase in the rate of gun ownership?
Not necessarily. I wouldn't expect any tit-for-tat relationship because the effects of an armed citizenry on reducing crime may only show up after a critical mass of armed citizens is reached, which leads to behavioral changes in the criminal element.
If so, would you please indicate how the following graph I found on
a pro gun website demonstrates this? For the life of me I cannot see even a rough correlation between the ups and downs of the murder rate and the rise in gun ownership, let alone a causal link.
I do. Quite clearly actually. As crime reached its peak in about 1994, the rising number of guns per 1000 persons passed roughly 85 percent. Combined with rapid changes in concealed carry laws that occurred between roughly 1985 and the end of your graph, 2002, the number of people actually carrying guns in public increased dramatically, and as we see, crime plummeted precipitously.
Under that analysis, correlation does indeed show causation. During the period from 1985 to the present the only things that changed substantially are the number of guns in society and the number of states that reformed their concealed carry laws, which resulted in many millions more people carrying guns in public, which had exactly the predicted effect on criminality, and which continues to have that same predicted effect.
The rest of your canard is disposed of by pointing out that Australia is a nation founded on gun control because its first immigrants were mostly criminals deported from the British Empire to a place thought to be so hostile to survival that they would inevitably die and no longer be a problem to Britain.
This resulted in an inbred servility to authority much like the mentality of slaves in the US prior to the Civil War, where all thought of rebellion was immediately crushed with overwhelming force in order that the government maintain power and control. One of Australia's most notable "heroes" is Ned Kelly, who was a petty criminal who ended up as a notorious outlaw for whom the law was changed to allow ANYONE to kill him on sight, something which could not happen today because none of the dumb fucks in Australia carry guns.
In response to these killings, the reward was raised to £500 and, on 31 October 1878, the Victorian parliament hastily passed the Felons' Apprehension Act, coming into effect on 1 November 1878, which outlawed the gang[72] and made it possible for anyone to shoot them: There was no need for the outlaws to be arrested or for there to be a trial upon apprehension. (The act was based on the 1865 act passed in New South Wales which declared Ben Hall and his gang outlaws.[73][74]) Source: Wikipedia
Of course it bears mentioning that one of the reasons Ned Kelly became a notorious outlaw and was eventually hanged was because the police and judicial system in Australia were notoriously corrupt and abusive of the citizenry.
So your notion that Australians don't need guns to put down a tyrant is, as usual, ignorant of historical facts. And yes, it is true that a society doesn't need guns to control government...until it does. Your faith in the power of the vote is naive and childish. Just ask the Jews at Auschwitz. Oh, wait, you can't, they are dead because they gave up their guns to Hitler on the promise that by doing so crime would be eliminated and the government would keep them safe.
QED.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
