• UK: Supplying a weapon 'just as bad as using one' - could mean life in prison
    162 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Valnar;38134446]That decrease in murders by handguns was already happening well before the ban took place.[/QUOTE] the 7 years of stability at the low point of that wobbly graph wasn't [editline]22nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Neat!;38134476]as you can tell by this graph there is no reason to believe kopimi is either a turd burgler or a dong mongler[/QUOTE] epic post but you missed LMAO pics by at least 2 subforums
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134477]the 7 years of stability at the low point of that wobbly graph wasn't[/QUOTE] How does that prove that the handgun ban was the cause of that stability?
[QUOTE=Valnar;38134495]How does that prove that the handgun ban was the cause of that stability?[/QUOTE] because it immediately followed the introduction of the handgun ban. try to keep up
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134504]because it immediately followed the introduction of the handgun ban. try to keep up[/QUOTE] because all laws have an instant effect, right?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134469]maybe if you're learning impaired and you completely misunderstood what i said that would be true but to anyone with the ability to read simple sentences, what i said was definitely accurate[/QUOTE] -snip im retarded and thought you posted something someone else posted-
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134504]because it immediately followed the introduction of the handgun ban. try to keep up[/QUOTE] That doesn't prove anything except that the decrease in handgun murders stopped and stabilized shortly after a handgun ban. I could just as easily say that the handgun ban stopped the trend of decrease in handgun murders. Just because the handgun law correlated with a period of stable rates doesn't mean it necessarily caused it.
[QUOTE=Neat!;38134518]because all laws have an instant effect, right?[/QUOTE] considering the 7 years of stability immediately followed a piece of legislation that was introduced during a period of notable fluctuation and instability yeah apparently they do
[QUOTE=Neat!;38129333]the fact that the UK is an island also makes it much harder to smuggle them in here in the colonies we've got mexico[/QUOTE] An island would hypothetically make it easier to smuggle stuff in as you'vve got bigger boarders relatively to your actual size :P
[QUOTE=Valnar;38134532]That doesn't prove anything except that the decrease in handgun murders stopped and stabilized shortly after a handgun ban. I could just as easily say that the handgun ban stopped the trend of decrease in handgun murders and thus was a bad thing. Just because the handgun law correlated with a period of stable rates doesn't mean it necessarily caused it.[/QUOTE] if you want to play with dumb "maybe" logic and completely ignore any correlation in a set of data why bother bringing up this data in the first place. correlation = causation when it suits your argument but never the contrary
I didn't even realise Chicago was in the UK.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;38134547]I didn't even realise Chicago was in the UK.[/QUOTE] is this dude still crying about the fact that people are posting about guns in a gun thread lol
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134546] correlation = causation when it suits your argument but never the contrary[/QUOTE] No. It doesn't. That's the problem. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation[/URL]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134546]if you want to play with dumb "maybe" logic and completely ignore any correlation in a set of data why bother bringing up this data in the first place. correlation = causation when it suits your argument but never the contrary[/QUOTE] thats a funny way of saying "you're right but I don't like it"
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation"]-[/URL]snip automerge broked-
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134546]if you want to play with dumb "maybe" logic and completely ignore any correlation in a set of data why bother bringing up this data in the first place. correlation = causation when it suits your argument but never the contrary[/QUOTE] I'm saying that gun laws don't have a strong effect on gun crime. There has been a lot of data that suggests that less gun laws point to less crime. What that really shows is that guns being available and gun crime aren't very linked.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134548]is this dude still crying about the fact that people are posting about guns in a gun thread lol[/QUOTE] Yes I am because this is the 4th page now where the same people have been talking about the same crap that doesn't really relate to the news post. Stopping criminal weapon trading has nothing to do with gun laws.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38134555]thats a funny way of saying "you're right but I don't like it"[/QUOTE] its a completely serious way of saying you can apply "correlation to causation" to even the most obvious trends but at some point (presumably this one) it becomes redundant and ridiculous. nobody seems to think correlation != causation when neat posts something pro-gun but as soon you point out a link between lowered handgun murder rates and gun control legislation that goes out the window and you guys just keep frantically crying "correlation does not equal causation" without offering any alternative explanation for the trend
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134573]its a completely serious way of saying you can apply "correlation to causation" to even the most obvious trends but at some point (presumably this one) it becomes redundant and ridiculous. nobody seems to think correlation != causation when neat posts something pro-gun but as soon you point out a link between lowered handgun murder rates and gun control legislation that goes out the window and you guys just keep frantically crying "correlation does not equal causation" without offering any alternative explanation for the trend[/QUOTE] oh please he pointed out an entirely legitimate point and you're upset because you have no answer instead your going to cry about double standards which may or may not exist
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134573]its a completely serious way of saying you can apply "correlation to causation" to even the most obvious trends but at some point (presumably this one) it becomes redundant and ridiculous. nobody seems to think correlation != causation when neat posts something pro-gun but as soon you point out a link between lowered handgun murder rates and gun control legislation that goes out the window and you guys just keep frantically crying "correlation does not equal causation" without offering any alternative explanation for the trend[/QUOTE] or we're all wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about because we have only a slight idea of how this shit works
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38134589]oh please he pointed out an entirely legitimate point and you're upset because you have no answer instead your going to cry about double standards which may or may not exist[/QUOTE] but it's not a legitimate point, for the reasons listed above lol [editline]22nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Neat!;38134595]or we're all wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about because we have only a slight idea of how this shit works[/QUOTE] then why would you bother posting that data and claiming it supports the idea that gun control causes crime
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134573]its a completely serious way of saying you can apply "correlation to causation" to even the most obvious trends but at some point (presumably this one) it becomes redundant and ridiculous. nobody seems to think correlation != causation when neat posts something pro-gun but as soon you point out a link between lowered handgun murder rates and gun control legislation that goes out the window and you guys just keep frantically crying "correlation does not equal causation" without offering any alternative explanation for the trend[/QUOTE] The black market, gun culture growth/decline, gun safety education, general crime rates, to name a few, are not variables that should be flat out ignored.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134573]its a completely serious way of saying you can apply "correlation to causation" to even the most obvious trends but at some point (presumably this one) it becomes redundant and ridiculous. nobody seems to think correlation != causation when neat posts something pro-gun but as soon you point out a link between lowered handgun murder rates and gun control legislation that goes out the window and you guys just keep frantically crying "correlation does not equal causation" without offering any alternative explanation for the trend[/QUOTE] I did offer an alternative explanation for the trend. I said that the handgun ban might have stopped what could have been a further decrease in handgun murders. Another explanation, which I didn't say earlier, could be that stable point for 7 years might be some sort of floor for handgun murders that is hard to get under.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38134589]oh please he pointed out an entirely legitimate point and you're upset because you have no answer instead your going to cry about double standards which may or may not exist[/QUOTE] You don't need an answer of your own to respond to or criticize an assertion. [editline]21st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Valnar;38134621]I did offer an alternative explanation for the trend. I said that the handgun ban might have stopped what could have been a further decrease in handgun murders. Another explanation, which I didn't say earlier, could be that stable point for 7 years might be some sort of floor for handgun murders that is hard to get under.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it might have but is there anything to suggest that it did? As far as I can tell Kopimi's explanation for the stability has to do with the type of fluctuation that was going on at the time the legislation was introduced, whereas yours is more or less a what-if question.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38134598]but it's not a legitimate point, for the reasons listed above lol [/QUOTE] What? you're looking at a graph and seeing only what you want to see and then when some points out something different you whine about perceived bias or just close your eyes and ignore what they wrote "no no no you're all wrong" [editline]22nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;38134631]You don't need an answer of your own to respond to or criticize an assertion. [/QUOTE] Except its not a response, he's just dodging the point.
[QUOTE=Megafan;38134631]You don't need an answer of your own to respond to or criticize an assertion. [editline]21st October 2012[/editline] Yeah, it might have but is there anything to suggest that it did? As far as I can tell Kopimi's explanation for the stability has to do with the type of fluctuation that was going on at the time the legislation was introduced, whereas yours is more or less a what-if question.[/QUOTE] The main reason I called into question kopimi's explanation is because of the very significant decrease in handgun murders that was already happening a few years before the ban was implemented. Because of that the correlation between handgun ban and murder stability is kinda weak because it shows that the stability may have happened regardless of the ban. If that decrease before the ban had not happened than it would be a different story.
So Boeing's heads should be given life.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38134137]Banning weapons is retarded. It's just like the prohibition of alcohol and the drug war. It keeps it out of law-abiding citizens' hands, creates an unregulated black market, and doesn't do shit to stop the flow of guns. [editline]21st October 2012[/editline] I mean, fuck, look at Chicago.[/QUOTE] Except that firearm offences in the UK have fallen below what they were when they were first banned. Given the respective population increase during the period as well, I would say that it has worked out quite nicely for us.
[QUOTE=Neat!;38134009] however, going by those statistics, stricter gun laws being implemented was followed by an increase of crime, and more relaxed gun laws was followed by a decrease in crime on many occasions what does that tell you[/QUOTE] It doesn't tell me anything. You have to infer things from it. The increase in crime could be caused by other factors. [editline]22nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;38135246]Except that firearm offences in the UK have fallen below what they were when they were first banned. Given the respective population increase during the period as well, I would say that it has worked out quite nicely for us.[/QUOTE] You have hit on what I was just thinking about when I posted my last post. Its entirely possible that maybe just maybe its a culture thing. Perhaps our criminals just don't like using guns.
[QUOTE=Jsm;38135406]You have hit on what I was just thinking about when I posted my last post. Its entirely possible that maybe just maybe its a culture thing. Perhaps our criminals just don't like using guns.[/QUOTE] I did read somewhere that they're generally avoided by a lot of criminals because it ups the ante too much, and that the police will invest more time and money in tracking down suspects in cases involving firearms, so there isn't much pay off in using one.
Statistics can be interpreted to back whatever argument you may have.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.