Yay, GUNS!

[swansont]

Sorry, I had to go on a business trip.

 

My comment was based on the control theory of crime causation.

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403000066.html

 

 

Even if that were true (you might note it's one hypothesis among many in that link), I don't see how it supports your claim that "criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living"

[waitforufo]

 

Even if that were true (you might note it's one hypothesis among many in that link), I don't see how it supports your claim that "criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living"

I included a link with more that one hypothesis for balance. I think the link to my claim is very obvious. Our criminal justice system is based on the control theory. It's based on making the cost of crime high.

[John Cuthber]

What are the unemployment figures like,and how many jobs are open at any given time?

Do people always have the option of getting a job?

If not, it's difficult to say that they are making a choice when they do something else.

[swansont]

I included a link with more that one hypothesis for balance. I think the link to my claim is very obvious. Our criminal justice system is based on the control theory. It's based on making the cost of crime high.

 

It's not obvious to me.

[overtone]

They argue that all people have needs and desires that are more easily satisfied through crime than through legal channels. For example, it is much easier to steal money than to work for it.

It isn't, actually, easier to steal money than work for it. And other crime is even harder work - the last analysis I saw of retail drug sales in LA was something like $3.50@hr and a 1/12 chance of getting killed in any given year. http://blog.masslive.com/localbuzz_impact/2008/07/sv0707a.pdf

Edited December 10, 2015 by overtone

[DimaMazin]

UK and France are weaker even than Russia. Therefore USA shouldn't repeat their politics of dying away civilizations.

[waitforufo]

It isn't, actually, easier to steal money than work for it. And other crime is even harder work - the last analysis I saw of retail drug sales in LA was something like $3.50@hr and a 1/12 chance of getting killed in any given year. http://blog.masslive.com/localbuzz_impact/2008/07/sv0707a.pdf

That 3.50 per hour is tax free and doesn't impact your ability to get an EBT card or lose your Medicaid/Obamacare. Who knew the drug trade came with death benefits? Per your link five grand. Also, all the education you need is the school of hard knocks. A 1/12 chance of getting killed means that the day you join the drug trade you have a 50% chance of death in 7 years and a 90% chance of death in 26 years. My guess is that many are willing to take that risk and believe they can kill before being killed. Hence the high homicide rate for criminals, proving my point.

 

So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead.

false dichotomy.

[waitforufo]

false dichotomy.

Not if your goal is to reduce homicide. But that is not your goal is it?

[John Cuthber]

Not if your goal is to reduce homicide. But that is not your goal is it?

Regardless of the objective, it's a false dichotomy.

 

Is it that you just don't understand what I wrote or did you feel like being pointlessly offensive anyway?

[Hans de Vries]

If your goal is to reduce homicide rate, gun control is not the answer.

 

In the US homicide rate is 3.8 per 100,000 people - slighty larger than European average but in Estonia for example (a high income Baltic country) it's 5.0 per 100,000 people - and Estonia has over ten times fewer firearms per capita than the US.

 

Switzerland ranks 3rd in firearms ownership yet its homicide rate is only 0.7/100,000 - among the lowest in the world

[iNow]

Switzerland ranks 3rd in firearms ownership yet its homicide rate is only 0.7/100,000 - among the lowest in the world

Perhaps because they have sensible restrictions on those guns. Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp?

 

Click this link, then hit the plus sign to expand the Gun Regulation section: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

[Hans de Vries]

so...? Data shows that there isno correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. In the US there is 30 times more gusn per100 people than in Netherlands Is US homicide rate 30 times higher than that of the Netherlands? Or 10 ttimes? No, it's about 4 times higher, for reasons that can be easily attributed to factors other than ownership of firearms.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[waitforufo]

Regardless of the objective, it's a false dichotomy.

 

Is it that you just don't understand what I wrote or did you feel like being pointlessly offensive anyway?

I don't understand, please explain.

[iNow]

so...? Data shows that there isno correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate.

Nope. You do know, right, that your argument is made weaker when you must use lies to support it?

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/8/9870240/gun-ownership-deaths-homicides

 

 

I don't understand, please explain.

You suggested that we should go after criminals instead of going after guns. Inherent in your comment was the insinuation that we could do only one or the other. As should be clear to anyone too old to still be breastfeeding, you put forth a false dichotomy. We can and should do both. Edited December 11, 2015 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

I don't understand, please explain.

Do you not understand what a false dichotomy it?

If so, you should have looked it up or asked, before commenting on it.

Or do you not understand that it's insulting to say that I am not trying to reduce the bloodshed?

Or do you not understand that (as iNow said) we can do both?

 

Or are you making a general observation that your skill at understanding things is poor- which is consistent with your recent posts?

[swansont]

so...? Data shows that there isno correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. In the US there is 30 times more gusn per100 people than in Netherlands Is US homicide rate 30 times higher than that of the Netherlands? Or 10 ttimes? No, it's about 4 times higher, for reasons that can be easily attributed to factors other than ownership of firearms.

 

But that is a correlation. So it's a bad example of having no correlation.

 

So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead.

 

Go after criminals? Gosh, why didn't anyone think of that before?

 

 

Still waiting for actual evidence that "criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living."

[waitforufo]

Do you not understand what a false dichotomy it?

If so, you should have looked it up or asked, before commenting on it.

Or do you not understand that it's insulting to say that I am not trying to reduce the bloodshed?

Or do you not understand that (as iNow said) we can do both?

 

Or are you making a general observation that your skill at understanding things is poor- which is consistent with your recent posts?

No, I'm perfectly aware of what a false dichotomy is. I just don't agree that restricting firearms will reduce the homicide rate in a serious way. Criminals will still kill and be killed. If your are not a criminal your likelihood of being a victim of homicide in the US is tiny. I provided links showing that fact. Look at Japan. Private possession of firearms are almost non existent. Their homicide rate is 3.0, where the US is 3.8. If you are suicidal you will find a way. Look a japan. Their suicide rate is ranked 28.2 where the US is ranked 12.1. This shows that gun control will have a minuscule effect on the homicide or suicide rate in the US. Certainly not enough to limit freedoms in a freedom loving country.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

You are simply angry with me because I don't agree with you.

 

 

Still waiting for actual evidence that "criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living."

I provide you a reference.

Edited December 11, 2015 by waitforufo

[swansont]

I provide you a reference.

 

A viewpoint, which was irrelevant to the claim.

[John Cuthber]

No, I'm perfectly aware of what a false dichotomy is. I just don't agree that restricting firearms will reduce the homicide rate in a serious way. Criminals will still kill and be killed. If your are not a criminal your likelihood of being a victim of homicide in the US is tiny. I provided links showing that fact. Look at Japan. Private possession of firearms are almost non existent. Their homicide rate is 3.0, where the US is 3.8. If you are suicidal you will find a way. Look a japan. Their suicide rate is ranked 28.2 where the US is ranked 12.1. This shows that gun control will have a minuscule effect on the homicide or suicide rate in the US. Certainly not enough to limit freedoms in a freedom loving country.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

You are simply angry with me because I don't agree with you.

 

I provide you a reference.

And, as already explained, This

"So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead."

is still a false dichotomy because there's nothing to stop you doing both.

Do you understand that?

And I'm annoyed at you because you falsely accused me of not wanting to reduce the death toll when you said this "Not if your goal is to reduce homicide. But that is not your goal is it?".

 

But you have backed up my comment about your general lack of understanding.

[waitforufo]

And, as already explained, This

"So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead."

is still a false dichotomy because there's nothing to stop you doing both.

Do you understand that?

And I'm annoyed at you because you falsely accused me of not wanting to reduce the death toll when you said this "Not if your goal is to reduce homicide. But that is not your goal is it?".

 

But you have backed up my comment about your general lack of understanding.

Your logic is like thinking "I knew I should have fixed the small leak in my roof" when your home is flooded by a river breaching its banks.

The homicide rate in the US is not caused by guns, it is caused by criminals. If you want to fix the homicide problem, you need to fix the criminal problem.

Edited December 11, 2015 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

Your logic is like thinking "I knew I should have fixed the small leak in my roof" when your home is flooded by a river breaching its banks.

 

 

And yours is like “fuck the river, I’ve got a small leak in the roof”.

Edited December 11, 2015 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

Your logic is like thinking "I knew I should have fixed the small leak in my roof" when your home is flooded by a river breaching its banks.

The homicide rate in the US is not caused by guns, it is caused by criminals. If you want to fix the homicide problem, you need to fix the criminal problem.

Interestingly, this is progress.

Now, do you understand that the flood is likely to subside, but that doesn't stop it being a good idea to fix the leaky roof?

 

Do you understand that the really good thing to do is not to fix problem A nor to fix problem B, but to fix both problems?

The fact that you can look at both is, (for about the 4th time of explaining it) the reason why it's a false dichotomy to say that you have to fix one, or the other?

 

Are you beginning to get to grips with that yet?

Do you see that attacking crime does not stop you controlling gun misuse and that attacking the misuse of guns does not stop you attacking crime?

 

Once we address this failure of your comprehension, perhaps we can look at the one where you don't understand that it's rude to claim that other people are not also trying to stop people getting killed (by trying to do (listen carefully here) not just one thing- but two different things that might both help)

 

Do you see how doing two things might do more than just doing one?

I realise I'm labouring the pint but each time I try to point out that two is more than one, you seem not to understand.

Is it that simple, are you unable to grasp the idea that doing two things- each of which might help a bit- is likely to be better than doing just one of them?

 

Or should we simply ignore all your future posts as dross?

[overtone]

 

 

That 3.50 per hour is tax free and doesn't impact your ability to get an EBT card or lose your Medicaid/Obamacare.

Likewise working for minimum wage, which pays twice as much per hour - usually for easier work.

 

Crime is hard work. No rational person goes into crime because it's easier than working.

[waitforufo]

 

 

And yours is like “fuck the river, I’ve got a small leak in the roof”.

Temper, Temper.

 

No my logic, as would any sane person's logic, would be "I'm glad I didn't waste my time and money fixing the roof."

 

By the way, this forum intends to appeal to people of all ages, so please watch your course language.

 

Interestingly, this is progress.

Now, do you understand that the flood is likely to subside, but that doesn't stop it being a good idea to fix the leaky roof?

 

Do you understand that the really good thing to do is not to fix problem A nor to fix problem B, but to fix both problems?

The fact that you can look at both is, (for about the 4th time of explaining it) the reason why it's a false dichotomy to say that you have to fix one, or the other?

 

Are you beginning to get to grips with that yet?

Do you see that attacking crime does not stop you controlling gun misuse and that attacking the misuse of guns does not stop you attacking crime?

 

Once we address this failure of your comprehension, perhaps we can look at the one where you don't understand that it's rude to claim that other people are not also trying to stop people getting killed (by trying to do (listen carefully here) not just one thing- but two different things that might both help)

 

Do you see how doing two things might do more than just doing one?

I realise I'm labouring the pint but each time I try to point out that two is more than one, you seem not to understand.

Is it that simple, are you unable to grasp the idea that doing two things- each of which might help a bit- is likely to be better than doing just one of them?

 

Or should we simply ignore all your future posts as dross?

A lot of words to explain the definition of a false dichotomy. As I said before, I know what a false dichotomy is, and this isn't one.

 

I own several firearms, and I never found one tapping at my front door trying to get out. Since I don't associate with criminals and have self control, the chances of any of my firearms being used in a homicide are essentially zero. So why should my liberty be restricted? Gun control laws are going after the wrong people.

Edited December 12, 2015 by waitforufo