It's Finally Happened, They're Gonna Try to Ban Knives

radTube · Jun 23, 2005, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EleazarCAST

I don't understand how they can't be credible.

Then I really can't help you. This just proves that my assesment of your definition of credible might well be right. NRA can't be biased against gun control, nooo...

And freerepublic.com, a religiously conservative site quoting members of SAF (Second Amendment Foundation), oh, that just doesn't sound very objective to me. I wonder why. I did explain about the BBC article already, didn't I?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ^_^

But at the same time I don't see any sources from your point of view. If your a prohibitionist who wanted gun control and you find out crime went up after the banning of guns you wouldn't make any surveys or results.

I have no trouble seeing how the people who are against the law might be the ones making all the noise. It would probably be the other way around, if the 'ban' was lifted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ^_^

So can you find any that say the crime went down after the UK ban?

Well I thought I did post a link to the UK crime report that clearly shows that crime has gone down. And if you're referring specifically to gun crime, then yes, it did fall also if you drop crime with fake guns from the equation. It's much harder to point to a specific law or action and say it's the one causing these changes in the stats though. I mean, it might be the gun laws, or it might not. Or maybe (probably) it's a combination of things.

digerati · Jun 23, 2005, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radTube

Well I thought I did post a link to the UK crime report that clearly shows that crime has gone down. And if you're referring specifically to gun crime, then yes, it did fall also if you drop crime with fake guns from the equation. It's much harder to point to a specific law or action and say it's the one causing these changes in the stats though. I mean, it might be the gun laws, or it might not. Or maybe (probably) it's a combination of things.

You posted a 12 month report from September 2003 to September 2004 while Eleazar's links are more around 2001 which is right around the ban time. His arguement is that gun crime went up right after the ban, not that overall crime has gone up. Therefore your link does very little to his arguement.

yoda133113 · Jun 23, 2005, 02:31 AM

Actually I think a great argument against gun control is not just that countries that outlaw guns have high crime rates, but that Switzerland, which actually requires that all males own a pistol or an assault rifle (correct me if i'm a little off ther, but I know that I'm close) sells ammo to their citizens at cost, and sells old army equipment (read howitzer, etc.) to the public, has a remarkably low crime rate.

EleazarCAST · Jun 23, 2005, 08:05 AM

Your link that crime has gone down after a long period of time, could reflect on other issues, rather than directly gun control. Where as my sources are applied directly to gun control. Also, just because someone is biased, doesn't mean they aren't credible. It is you who have a skewed view of credibility. You can't just deny research because a third party posts it. It is the research team that had those findings NOT the NRA or freerepublic. You would have to say the research team was biased, which you know absolutely nothing about. Even if it was the NRA or FR that did the research, it still doesn't mean it's not credible. Your bias is getting in the way of rationality. Whereas theirs is getting in the way of what research they decide is important to discuss and put on a fact sheet. Two very different biases. One is logical, while the other is illogical.

**Vikingod** · Jun 23, 2005, 08:15 AM

thats rich, very funny. You know, when i was in school, some douchbag pulled a screw driver on me and tried to stab me (I subsequently kicked his ass, lol). I think they should ban screw drivers, and pens, and pointy sticks, and...

radTube · Jun 23, 2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EleazarCAST

Your link that crime has gone down after a long period of time, could reflect on other issues, rather than directly gun control.

Yeah, this works both ways. This is what I pointed out in an earlier post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EleazarCAST

Also, just because someone is biased, doesn't mean they aren't credible.

I disagree. You can't use information released by a biased (be it liberal, conservative, communist, racist, religious fundamentalist, whatever) source as the basis of an objective opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EleazarCAST

It is you who have a skewed view of credibility.

That seems credible enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EleazarCAST

You can't just deny research because a third party posts it. It is the research team that had those findings NOT the NRA or freerepublic.

I've still to see the full report by the research team. I've only seen the bits these biased groups chose to publish to promote their agendas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EleazarCAST

Even if it was the NRA or FR that did the research, it still doesn't mean it's not credible.

I know that any research results they decide to publish is for their own interests. That's enough to make me doubt them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EleazarCAST

Your bias is getting in the way of rationality.

So's yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EleazarCAST

Whereas theirs is getting in the way of what research they decide is important to discuss and put on a fact sheet.

I'm glad we agree on this. So you do understand that they would never publish research that they don't agree with. That makes them something less than credible as a source of information. Getting only part of the story can be even more harmful than getting nothing at all. If you don't see what I'm trying to say, too bad. I'm running out of words (and interest) here...