Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Assault weapons

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 12:31:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The pundits are outdoing themselves in wretched misunderstanding when it comes to discussing assault weapons. Here is a primer.

Nearly all weapons in private hands are now semi-automatic. A semi-automatic weapon uses the explosive gases from firing a round to load the next round. The gun can then be fired about as fast as the trigger is pulled. Military weapons are fully automatic, which means the gun will fire repeatedly so long as the trigger is held in the firing position. In the US, automatic weapons require a special license. The background check and license fees run around $4K - $5K, so there are very few such licenses issued and virtually no automatics used in mass killings. The assault rifles sold are modified to limit them to semi-automatic operation.

Large caliber weapons are more lethal than small caliber weapons. For self defense, the goal is to immediately take out an attacker so he cannot shoot while bleeding out. A deer slug in a shotgun is near the top in stopping power, then hunting rifles and Dirty Harry type 44 to 50 caliber guns. Assault rifles are near the low end, about 22 caliber.

So why isn't the military more eager to kill people with an assault rifle? The purpose of firing a lot of low caliber rounds is to get the enemy to take cover and stay down. The purpose of an assault is to overrun an enemy position. That's accomplished by keeping them down so they can't fire. Of course, a 22 at close range is lethal.

It's nearly impossible to define an assault rifle as distinct from any other small caliber semi-automatic. When an assault rifle ban was in effect in the US for ten years, it was mainly defined by things like the magazine size. The ban had no significant effect.

So why does anyone need an assault rifle in private life? The ammo is cheap for sporting purposes, the military makes the weapons reliable, and people no doubt like the macho image. For self defense, a larger caliber weapon is better. Mass killers would be forced to switch to larger calibers if small calibers were banned.

There has been talk of banning all semi-automatic weapons. A bolt-action rifle is very slow to operate, so it wouldn't be useful for self-defense. Old-style revolvers would pass, but are difficult to operate. I think a pump action shotgun would pass as a manual weapon.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:09:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 12:31:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The pundits are outdoing themselves in wretched misunderstanding when it comes to discussing assault weapons. Here is a primer.

Nearly all weapons in private hands are now semi-automatic. A semi-automatic weapon uses the explosive gases from firing a round to load the next round. The gun can then be fired about as fast as the trigger is pulled. Military weapons are fully automatic, which means the gun will fire repeatedly so long as the trigger is held in the firing position. In the US, automatic weapons require a special license. The background check and license fees run around $4K - $5K, so there are very few such licenses issued and virtually no automatics used in mass killings. The assault rifles sold are modified to limit them to semi-automatic operation.

Large caliber weapons are more lethal than small caliber weapons. For self defense, the goal is to immediately take out an attacker so he cannot shoot while bleeding out. A deer slug in a shotgun is near the top in stopping power, then hunting rifles and Dirty Harry type 44 to 50 caliber guns. Assault rifles are near the low end, about 22 caliber.

So why isn't the military more eager to kill people with an assault rifle? The purpose of firing a lot of low caliber rounds is to get the enemy to take cover and stay down. The purpose of an assault is to overrun an enemy position. That's accomplished by keeping them down so they can't fire. Of course, a 22 at close range is lethal.

It's nearly impossible to define an assault rifle as distinct from any other small caliber semi-automatic. When an assault rifle ban was in effect in the US for ten years, it was mainly defined by things like the magazine size. The ban had no significant effect.

So why does anyone need an assault rifle in private life? The ammo is cheap for sporting purposes, the military makes the weapons reliable, and people no doubt like the macho image. For self defense, a larger caliber weapon is better. Mass killers would be forced to switch to larger calibers if small calibers were banned.

There has been talk of banning all semi-automatic weapons. A bolt-action rifle is very slow to operate, so it wouldn't be useful for self-defense. Old-style revolvers would pass, but are difficult to operate. I think a pump action shotgun would pass as a manual weapon.

Very nice post.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:14:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

And then there's this: http://youtu.be...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:19:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 1:14:25 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

And then there's this: http://youtu.be...

Ant this:

http://youtu.be...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:27:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 1:14:25 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

And then there's this: http://youtu.be...

Yes, the 33 year hand gun ban caused a jump in the murder rate 20 years after it was implemented, then the rate dropped 6 years before it was removed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:36:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 1:27:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:14:25 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

And then there's this: http://youtu.be...

Yes, the 33 year hand gun ban caused a jump in the murder rate 20 years after it was implemented, then the rate dropped 6 years before it was removed.

So, you agree the ban failed to prevent gun crimes. Correct?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:38:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 1:36:05 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:27:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:14:25 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

And then there's this: http://youtu.be...

Yes, the 33 year hand gun ban caused a jump in the murder rate 20 years after it was implemented, then the rate dropped 6 years before it was removed.

So, you agree the ban failed to prevent gun crimes. Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

You apparently didn't see this posted half an hour ago. The banning of handguns does not prevent crime, nor does it increase them, as they are multi-purpose.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:40:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 1:38:32 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:36:05 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:27:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:14:25 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

And then there's this: http://youtu.be...

Yes, the 33 year hand gun ban caused a jump in the murder rate 20 years after it was implemented, then the rate dropped 6 years before it was removed.

So, you agree the ban failed to prevent gun crimes. Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

You apparently didn't see this posted half an hour ago. The banning of handguns does not prevent crime, nor does it increase them, as they are multi-purpose.

And your response to the points made by this woman would be? What?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 2:39:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 1:40:21 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:38:32 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:36:05 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:27:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:14:25 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

And then there's this: http://youtu.be...

Yes, the 33 year hand gun ban caused a jump in the murder rate 20 years after it was implemented, then the rate dropped 6 years before it was removed.

So, you agree the ban failed to prevent gun crimes. Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

You apparently didn't see this posted half an hour ago. The banning of handguns does not prevent crime, nor does it increase them, as they are multi-purpose.



And your response to the points made by this woman would be? What?

Got about 2:45 to confirm that she's an idiot on several levels, also, she never made any points. She told an anecdotal story which is illogical to take any action on. Her personal appeal to emotion is no different than someone that says "had guns been banned Sandy Hook would not have happened" (since the guns were legally owned, and stolen by the son).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:50:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 2:39:47 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Got about 2:45 to confirm that she's an idiot on several levels, also, she never made any points. She told an anecdotal story which is illogical to take any action on. Her personal appeal to emotion is no different than someone that says "had guns been banned Sandy Hook would not have happened" (since the guns were legally owned, and stolen by the son).

Sexist.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 3:11:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

They don't know why crime fell. All academic studies actually say it was coincidence and that the ban, at best, had no effect and, at worst, increased crime
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 3:36:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm going to buy a 3D printer and design my own larger caliber assault rifle. :)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 3:41:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 3:11:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

They don't know why crime fell. All academic studies actually say it was coincidence and that the ban, at best, had no effect and, at worst, increased crime

There are two reasons why that is logically wrong.

1) No one can logically say that it "increased crime" since crime did not increase. What they may try to say is that crime did not drop as much as it should.

2) If the assault weapons ban was artificially holding up the crime rate to higher than it would have otherwise been, then the expiration of the ban would then allow the crime rate to fall back to where it should have been. We can see from the numbers that crime actually increased, it did not drop. There is no empirical evidence that the assault weapon ban increased or inflated the crime rate above what it otherwise would have been.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 12:46:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

The drop in statistics had nothing to do with the ban, because the drop continued after legalization of assault weapons, up to the present. Look at the statistics since 1950, http://www.kieranhealy.org... (scroll down to the graph) it's a monotonic rise until 1976, then a monotonic decline since then. If assault weapons were the primary driving force behind the stats, we should have seen a dramatic drop during the ban, then a return to the previous high rate. That didn't happen. There was a small inflection at the start of the ban, but the downward trend continued.

When a ban starts, it takes a short while for weapon usage to adapt to the new rules. Since assault weapons are impossible to define in any meaningful way, there are no statistics on murders done with assault weapons.

Clearly the availability of assault weapons has nothing to do the dramatic peak and decline. After WWII many returning soldiers were allowed to keep their guns, and most of the soldiers were accustomed to gun violence at levels way more realistic than video games, yet murder rates were low. Violent video game and movie culture has been rising steadily since the 70s, yet murder rates have been dropping.

I think the factor dominating the rise and fall of the murder rate is the demographics of the populations. Young people people starting in the late teens tend to commit at lot more violent crimes, and the murder rates track the aging of the post-war population. This is remarkable considering the rise of drug war violence in recent years, with dealers fighting each other. The previous high in murder rates in the US, much higher than today, was back in the 1920s when mobsters were shooting it out for control of the illegal liquor trade. I think it's remarkable that murder rate declines continue today despite drug wars; I suspect Mexico has a different graph.

Your claim that correlation proves causation fails as matter of logic, but in this case the correlation you claim does not exist. Murder rates have continued to decline after assault weapons were legalized.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 1:01:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The "gun debate" illustrates a timeless conflict between urban and rural mindsets. "Facts" presented in the discussion should be seen as only "justifications" of either the urban or the rural lifestyle.

The gun debate itself is entirely peripheral to this.

What passes as acceptable ranges of behavior in low-infrastructure areas such as the underpopulated countryside, should not be forced upon the high-infrastructure cities - and vice versa.

Those that understand this will never be convinced that the facts presented by the "other side" are anything but lies and distortions.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 1:08:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Stossel video includes an interview with John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." The Lott book is full of statistics showing that if people are allowed to defend themselves, crime drops. Lott's statistics are sound and have resisted attacks by "health professionals." Lott was previously an insurance actuary, and he's as expert a statistician as there is analyzing such numbers.

Critics generally accept that crime drops when guns are legal. Their arguments are that the drops are due to other factors. If enough "other factors" are added, more is explained even if the correlation to other factors is pure chance. Lott's work is supported by experts who understand how statistics really works. "Health professionals" are endlessly getting things wrong by bringing in irrelevances and adjusting weights to force the answer they are after.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 1:57:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It doesn't surprise me that if you take a country overflowing with guns (88.8 guns to every 100 people) and then increase gun restrictions in one place crime will flow towards that less defended island among a sea of guns. Half hearted regulation in a country already armed to the teeth will obviously do nothing.

Countries that actually have heavy gun restrictions have lower homocide rates, and far lower gun homicide rates - 11 people died from guns in Japan in 2008. 39 died in England and Wales in 2008 and 2009. 12,000 died from gun murders in 2009 in the US. That's four 9/11's.

I haven't read Jon Lott's book - does he compare statistics internationally or only compare crime rates within US states? Do his statistics conclude that homicides go down when gun regulations are increased, or crime overall? Does he analyse what the effect of a near total ban like in Japan or the UK would be, or only partial bans like the ones sometimes enacted in liberal US states?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 9:26:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 2:39:47 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:40:21 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:38:32 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:36:05 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:27:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 1:14:25 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

And then there's this: http://youtu.be...

Yes, the 33 year hand gun ban caused a jump in the murder rate 20 years after it was implemented, then the rate dropped 6 years before it was removed.

So, you agree the ban failed to prevent gun crimes. Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

You apparently didn't see this posted half an hour ago. The banning of handguns does not prevent crime, nor does it increase them, as they are multi-purpose.



And your response to the points made by this woman would be? What?

Got about 2:45 to confirm that she's an idiot on several levels, also, she never made any points. She told an anecdotal story which is illogical to take any action on. Her personal appeal to emotion is no different than someone that says "had guns been banned Sandy Hook would not have happened" (since the guns were legally owned, and stolen by the son).

Ore, the part I was hoping you would comment on started @ around 5:00.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 7:53:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 3:41:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/22/2012 3:11:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/22/2012 12:57:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, um...

In the 10 years prior to the assault weapon ban of 94, murder rates rose from 7.9 in 1984 to 9.0 in 1994 (a 14% increase). In the 10 years of the ban, murder rates dropped from 9.0 to 5.5 (39% increase), the rate during the last part of the ban was the lowest the country had seen since the mid 60's. After the ban lifted, murder jumped 10% in the following 2 years (after being basically flat lined for the last 4 years of the ban).

But that's purely coincidence, I'm sure.

They don't know why crime fell. All academic studies actually say it was coincidence and that the ban, at best, had no effect and, at worst, increased crime

There are two reasons why that is logically wrong.

1) No one can logically say that it "increased crime" since crime did not increase. What they may try to say is that crime did not drop as much as it should.

You don't understand basic trends.

Hypothetical: if crime was falling 1% each year before X law, and fell .5% the next year after X law, crime increased.

The drop in crime would have been larger if the ban was never implimented. Further, when the ban ended, crime continued to fall.


2) If the assault weapons ban was artificially holding up the crime rate to higher than it would have otherwise been, then the expiration of the ban would then allow the crime rate to fall back to where it should have been. We can see from the numbers that crime actually increased, it did not drop. There is no empirical evidence that the assault weapon ban increased or inflated the crime rate above what it otherwise would have been.

Crime continued to fall. 2012 is the first year that has reversed. Lott (2003, 2010) shows the ban increased crime, and many state bans prove that point. Gary Kleck (1997) claims the ban had no effect. Clinton researchers in 2004 say the ban cannot be given credit for the nations drop in crime in the 90s.

You're the one with no empirical evidence.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:15:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 6:16:28 PM, DanT wrote:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net...

See, reductio ad absurdum isn't for people who don't actually know how to use it.... How it works is that you find a conclusion that occurs directly from the proposition and is self-evidently negative, or you find you find an analogous reference with completely identical properties that's self-evidently negative.

The problem with the argument in that image is that cars are designed to take people places. But guns are designed with the purpose to kill. So one does not reduce to the others, and the comparison of the two is evidence of great stupidity.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:22:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 8:15:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/26/2012 6:16:28 PM, DanT wrote:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net...

The problem with the argument in that image is that cars are designed to take people places. But guns are designed with the purpose to kill. So one does not reduce to the others, and the comparison of the two is evidence of great stupidity.

Cars are for transportation and sport, but are 2,000 lb projectiles that can go 100 mph.

Guns are for self-defense, tyranny resistance, food, and sport. Also potentially dangerous like cars.

Why should one be banned and not the other. Explain that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:28:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 8:22:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/26/2012 8:15:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/26/2012 6:16:28 PM, DanT wrote:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net...

The problem with the argument in that image is that cars are designed to take people places. But guns are designed with the purpose to kill. So one does not reduce to the others, and the comparison of the two is evidence of great stupidity.

Cars are for transportation and sport, but are 2,000 lb projectiles that can go 100 mph.

Guns are for self-defense, tyranny resistance, food, and sport. Also potentially dangerous like cars.

Why should one be banned and not the other. Explain that.

That's a dumb question, geo. Glad you asked it.

Cars have regulations,...speed limits, seat belts etc., therefore by your own comparison, guns should have regulations. No one ever said to ban guns entirely.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:31:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 8:28:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/26/2012 8:22:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/26/2012 8:15:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/26/2012 6:16:28 PM, DanT wrote:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net...

The problem with the argument in that image is that cars are designed to take people places. But guns are designed with the purpose to kill. So one does not reduce to the others, and the comparison of the two is evidence of great stupidity.

Cars are for transportation and sport, but are 2,000 lb projectiles that can go 100 mph.

Guns are for self-defense, tyranny resistance, food, and sport. Also potentially dangerous like cars.

Why should one be banned and not the other. Explain that.

That's a dumb question, geo. Glad you asked it.

Cars have regulations,...speed limits, seat belts etc., therefore by your own comparison, guns should have regulations. No one ever said to ban guns entirely.

As the 2nd Amendment exists to give "the people" the right to defend themselves against the tyranny of government running out of control.... Any regulations that take place would have to be done in keeping with said goal of the 2nd Amendment.

So, with that in mind.... what are some of the regulations your are proposing?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...