UK arms control and the fake USA crisis

Come now. You're embarrassing yourself. Please dont put yourself in the same bucket as Phoenix Paper Trader. You're better than that surely?

Like I say, you are relying on one chart. One chart doesnt prove zip.

As for your remark about IQ - again, you are in fact proving my point with out knowing it!

FYI, there are several different IQ tests, so 100 may be low on one tests scale, yet quite abnormally high on another. This is just another way you seem to misinterpret statistics, yet have blind faith in them.

That really is quite stupid of you if you dont mind my saying so.

I really do think it is quite lazy to read some numbers and have blind faith in their result. Such people are often gullible to propaganda, and have a tendency to say 'would you like fries with that?' during normal work hours.

Have a nice day.

 

I'll correct you one more time before leaving you alone....

Please think very carefully before you answer the following, and do try to leave your beloved chart alone.

Do you think everybody in the USA should be allowed to carry guns? In fact, by your reasoning, perhaps it should be law that everybody is required to carry a gun - for self defence of course, especially with those little brown people running about causing havoc.

Now, if everybody in the USA HAD to carry a handgun, by federal law, do you think there would be more or less murder and man slaughter?

Think hard about that one....Take all day if you must. No hurry....

 

the ONLY way to scientifically answer the question of whether more guns means more homicides is to calculate a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. You have no empirical data to support you so you want to claim some sort of special weight be given to your intuition just because you say so, that's the beginnning of religious ignorance.

The data on the chart is a compilation of several sources like the governments of the UK and Sweden for instance. The governments say that even though gun ownership is higher in Sweden than the UK, the homicide rate is lower. Of course you can hand wave that away and make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims that you are simply smarter, however there is no reason whatsoever for any thinking person to believe you over figures that are not particularly controversial. There is also no reason to believe you over the british governments figures on handguns.

So let's get to the nub of it, prove that you are better equipped to analyze the crime in all the UK and have better statistics, prove that your conclusions are superior just because your qualitative intuition is something so special that it should be believed over empirical data. Do that and I'll take you seriously, anything short of that, you are just another self-important leftist hack.

 

In science we always say that asking the right question is important. I'm sorry but you have asked a very dumb question. Nobody is promoting, demanding, claiming such a 'right' etc. so it is a useless hypothetical, and you claim to have common sense....

your stupid arrogance is getting intolerable

 

Where did I say I have no belief in a scientific argument? This is another example where you twist facts.

Why dont you consider meaningful statistics, and look behind your figures. For example, why dont you have the brains to look at the population of Sweden and gun ownership per capita and see if it's even statistically significant in order to make a comparison in the first place? Duurh!

Using the scientific argument when you dont even understand it in the first instance really is dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I know your type - you try to hide behind 'science' and 'hard fact', because you think it gives you some sort of intellectual superiority. You end up looking pretty stupid however when everyone starts laughing at you because you dont know how to use the tools you're using.

Stop digging donut!

 

Myth: The availability of guns causes crime

Fact: Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen.
There is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide in America.
Fact: Internationally speaking “There’s no clear relationship between more
guns and higher levels of violence.”
Fact: “... a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries
or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”
Fact: Handgun ownership among groups normally associated with higher violent crime (young males, blacks, low income, inner city, etc.) is at or below national averages.
Fact: The most significant correlation between the use of guns in the commission of crimes occur when parents (27.5% of inmates) abuse drugs or have friends engaged in illegal activities (32.5% with robberies and 24.3% for drug trafficking)
Fact: Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and “[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.”
Fact: The majority of handguns in the possession of criminals are stolen, and not necessarily by the criminals in question.
In fact, over 100,000 firearms are stolen in burglaries every year,
and most of them likely enter the criminal market (i.e., sold or traded to criminals).
Fact: In 1968, the U.K. passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus reduced firearm availability. U.K. homicide rates have steadily risen since then.
Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade after the U.K. banned handguns

[here is where are bleeding heart liberals are to blame]

Fact: Most violent crime is caused by a small minority of repeat offenders. One California study found that 3.8% of a group of males born in 1956 were responsible for 55.5% of all serious felonies. 75-80% of murder arrestees have
prior arrests for a violent (including non-fatal) felony or burglary. On average they have about four felony arrests and one felony conviction.
Fact: Half of all murders are committed by people on “conditional release” (i.e., parole or probation). 81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record; 67% had a felony arrest record; 70% had a conviction record; and 54% had a felony conviction.

 

It may be a dumb question, but I ask as you are clearly a very dumb person - so I thought you'd be able to handle it.

The fact that you walk away and refuse to answer suggests that you have seen the futility of your own argument, so now resort to insults out of frustration.

You and Phoenix Paper Trader are cut from the same paper.

You have shown your own argument falls down and is false.

Thank you for the recourse. It was fun.

Have a good day.



Point proven, case closed. End of. Good bye.

 

Funny how you puff yourself up here call others dumb , question my education etc but don't know the difference between a "latin font" and a "latin word". Then you run away from my question of which foul word I used in a particular post in which you complained of it's offensive language.
Obviously you know there wasn't one ,hence you're running away.
And now comically enough you use recourse as synonymous with I suspect you meant discourse.

Hey it's okay to be dumb, but you just look like an idiot when you talk down to your superiors. lucrum mav etc

recourse:
noun
1.
access or resort to a person or thing for help or protection: to have recourse to the courts for justice.
2.
a person or thing resorted to for help or protection.
3.
the right to collect from a maker or endorser of a negotiable instrument.
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English recours < Old French < Late Latin recursus, Latin: return, retreat, noun use of past participle of recurrere to run back; see recur

 

From a guy who posted nothing empirically... sweden which has a gun ownership rate over 10 times UK's yet has a lower murder rate is not significant, britian confiscates handguns and yet handgun crime goes up is not significant- PROVE IT dumbass. You said you it wasn't significant so prove your statement.

I understand that scientists use data and work with meaningful arguments, not proclaimations of self superiority

I presented data with obvious conclusions, you did nothing except declare it wrong... and I am the one hiding? I won't look stupid until someone actually shows, not declares, the conclusions are incorrect.

You are one self-important pompous buffoon

 

It was a dumb question because it failed at addressing the reality. REQUIRING 'everyone' like kindergartners and prisoners to carry handguns is just one hell of a stupid proposition that NOBOBY is advocating. Requiring all suitable adults is again not even in the same galaxy as what anyone is proposing. To spend time with such sophistry so as to elevate it would be really stupid. It would be like NASA trying to debunk every UFO claim out there.


OH, point proven! Really, such arrogance is a weakness, look in the mirror, you must be making up for something