|
KMAN says:
================ There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community without guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns. Right? =============== I think you're being overly optimistic. frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
============= I'm talking about the rate of violent victimization overall and the impact that banning guns has on the rate at which people are victimized. ================= I agree with you, rates of change with respect to criminality may be significant. To determine, however, the causes of these changes may be more problematic. From the same source I cited previously, here are some sample crime rate changes. [for 1990-2000] Crimes recorded by the police (percentage changes) 1990-2000 ============= EU Member States average -1% England & Wales 4% Scotland -18% Austria 22% Estonia 143% Finland -11% France 8% Hungary 32% Lithuania 122% Italy -12% Netherlands 12% Russia 85% Slovakia -1% Slovenia 76% Sweden 0% Canada -10% Japan 49% U.S.A. -20% After looking at those figures, I'm not sure what kind of conclusions one might draw. A simplisic fool might conclude that communism served many peoples much better (from a crime perspective) because, since the introduction of a free market system, things appear to have gone hell in a hand basket in Russia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia etc. Slovakia seems to be an anomaly, but perhaps, now that the politically correct commies are no longer in charge, the Slovaks can finally give their gypsy population a good hiding [apologies to all those of either Slovak or gypsy extration]. As to the USA, perhaps the 20% decline is due to the dot-com economic explosion under the careful stewardship of President Clinton. I think one fairly well-established cause of crime is unemployment, underemployment, and poverty (Scott, as you so eloquently said in your "What I'd do to lazy welfare Queens" treatise, idle hands do the devil's work). OK, shall we chalk that -20% in the USA up to Clinton? Japan is a surprise at +49%. But perhaps not. If we note that the decade in question was not particularly kind to Japan economically, we ought not to be surprised that crime was up in Japan. In terms of Canada; often Canada follows the USA in economic development (I'll not revisit the nature of trade between Canada and the USA), so quite likely the positive data for Canada can also be attributed to 8 years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse GRIN. What's your take on these numbers, Scott? frtzw906 |
KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 4:44 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 3:26 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/26/05 6:58 PM: BCITORGB wrote: In case Scott doesn't like the NZ stats, here are some from Australia... http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls Homicides per 100,000 population - average per year 1998 to 2000 USA 5.87 New Zealand 2.28 Sweden 2.06 Australia 1.87 Canada 1.79 England & Wales 1.50 Netherlands 1.40 Germany 1.19 Denmark 1.00 So, for me, these statistics beg the question: WHY? Why is the muder rate so much higher in the USA? Are there extenuating factors? Hmmm..... [in the case of Canada we know, of course, that hundreds of people are murdered every year by the state -- waiting in medical treatment lines GRIN] frtzw906 So frtwz, are you acknowledging on KMANs behalf that rick is correct in what he has been claiming? Now can we all move on? GRIN TnT Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? I learned in my bar fighting days, that if it's not my fight, there is nothing gained by getting my nose broke! You and rick look to be having a good dance, so I don't see no cause to cut in! TnT You cut in all the time! Why be such a priss on this issue? FYI, it's not just with me that rick is a liar and a coward. His behavior is rather universal on that note. On Feb 13, at 6:21 I warned frtwz about engaging in a dialog with rick, and I have continued to do so on a number of ocassions. At that time I caught a little heat from r myself. But you have been around for awhile, and I have observed this phenomenon between the two of you before. So you should know better! Besides, on a lot of points, I probably would not necessarily disagree with the guy, I just try to be a little more civil in my conversation. Now he has been around for a lot longer than I so maybe he has learned something that I have yet to learn. However in the meantime I will just watch and learn, he's a great teacher. Of what? More of how! How not to communicate, you don't get your message through very well with all this spitball shooting. As far as cutting in all the time, I only cut in when I choose to cut in, and sometimes I choose to not cut in, specially when I stand to get my toes stepped on. The music you guys have been dancing to is really bad, and your moves are pretty ugly, but if yu are enjoying it, carry on. Don't let me interfere! TnT How so? Well I am not the one getting hit by the spitballs! Rick is claiming that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care, but he refuses to support his claim, and worse, says that he has done so, when everyone can see that he hasn't. That makes him a liar and a coward Tinkerntom, and so to (cowards) are all those who cower in the closet, afraid that their "toes will get stepped on." I've had my nose broke a enough times to show that I am no coward, and I am certainly not cowering in my closet. I am here in the forum ready to discuss in a reasonable fashion what so ever I feel inclined to discuss. I basically don't know that much about the Canadian Medical System, and whether people are dying waiting in line, I have no personal knowledge to make any comments. I have been watching this converstion with rick to see if any substantial info would surface, and have yet to see anything that I can really ruminate on from either side. And yet the bottom line as I see it, is that it is your system, and if it works for you, that is your business. It would only become my business if someone tried to enforce the system or some variation here in the States, which Hillary tried, and at the time, the majority of the people decided that we preferred the existing system we already have. Now as far as r being a liar and a coward, I don't know. I came back refreshed from vacation to find you two carrying on. I don't know when or where it started, and mostly have tried to ignore your spat. I have not seen any point in getting involved, or of even going back and trying to find the supposed and questioned post by either one of you. I have enough trouble keeping my post square as you well know from our previous experiences. I have been told back in the beginning by my good friends Wilko and riverman, not to say anything on the forum, that you would say to someone face to face. Now seeing that he is a gun nut (your definition) and possibly walks around with his "Assault weapon" armed and ready, it might not be wise to walk up to him and call him a "liar and a coward." So then I find it most profitable to refraim from doing so here on the net as well. C'mon Tinkerntom, what type of society are we to build here in rec.boats.paddle if we are not to support the basic building blocks of logical discussion? Shame on you! Now if you wanted to continue a new thread about the advantages of the Canadian Health Care system, sometime in the future, maybe there could be a logical discussion, but I doubt that could happen at this time in this thread. There appears to be to much macho image at risk between the two of you. I will look forward to that discussion, and I hope that I am back on your list of reasonable non cowards! TnT |
in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 2/27/05 2:01 PM: KMAN says: ================ There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community without guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns. Right? =============== I think you're being overly optimistic. frtzw906 I know, that's what is so damn scary. |
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/27/05 2:39 PM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 4:44 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 3:26 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/26/05 6:58 PM: BCITORGB wrote: In case Scott doesn't like the NZ stats, here are some from Australia... http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls Homicides per 100,000 population - average per year 1998 to 2000 USA 5.87 New Zealand 2.28 Sweden 2.06 Australia 1.87 Canada 1.79 England & Wales 1.50 Netherlands 1.40 Germany 1.19 Denmark 1.00 So, for me, these statistics beg the question: WHY? Why is the muder rate so much higher in the USA? Are there extenuating factors? Hmmm..... [in the case of Canada we know, of course, that hundreds of people are murdered every year by the state -- waiting in medical treatment lines GRIN] frtzw906 So frtwz, are you acknowledging on KMANs behalf that rick is correct in what he has been claiming? Now can we all move on? GRIN TnT Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? I learned in my bar fighting days, that if it's not my fight, there is nothing gained by getting my nose broke! You and rick look to be having a good dance, so I don't see no cause to cut in! TnT You cut in all the time! Why be such a priss on this issue? FYI, it's not just with me that rick is a liar and a coward. His behavior is rather universal on that note. On Feb 13, at 6:21 I warned frtwz about engaging in a dialog with rick, and I have continued to do so on a number of ocassions. At that time I caught a little heat from r myself. But you have been around for awhile, and I have observed this phenomenon between the two of you before. So you should know better! Besides, on a lot of points, I probably would not necessarily disagree with the guy, I just try to be a little more civil in my conversation. Now he has been around for a lot longer than I so maybe he has learned something that I have yet to learn. However in the meantime I will just watch and learn, he's a great teacher. Of what? More of how! How not to communicate, you don't get your message through very well with all this spitball shooting. Do you think rick is interested in any messages? He's not even interested in supporting any of his own statements. As far as cutting in all the time, I only cut in when I choose to cut in, and sometimes I choose to not cut in, specially when I stand to get my toes stepped on. The music you guys have been dancing to is really bad, and your moves are pretty ugly, but if yu are enjoying it, carry on. Don't let me interfere! TnT How so? Well I am not the one getting hit by the spitballs! And if you were, you probably wouldn't know! Rick is claiming that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care, but he refuses to support his claim, and worse, says that he has done so, when everyone can see that he hasn't. That makes him a liar and a coward Tinkerntom, and so to (cowards) are all those who cower in the closet, afraid that their "toes will get stepped on." I've had my nose broke a enough times to show that I am no coward That sounds a bit more like foolish than brave :-D and I am certainly not cowering in my closet. I am here in the forum ready to discuss in a reasonable fashion what so ever I feel inclined to discuss. I basically don't know that much about the Canadian Medical System Neither does rick. and whether people are dying waiting in line, I have no personal knowledge to make any comments. I have been watching this converstion with rick to see if any substantial info would surface, and have yet to see anything that I can really ruminate on from either side. Well Tinkerntom, it's very simple. Rick has made the claim, and he has failed to support it. Do you agree? And yet the bottom line as I see it, is that it is your system, and if it works for you, that is your business. It would only become my business if someone tried to enforce the system or some variation here in the States, which Hillary tried, and at the time, the majority of the people decided that we preferred the existing system we already have. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? The topic at hand is really quite irrlevant to the question. Now as far as r being a liar and a coward, I don't know. I came back refreshed from vacation to find you two carrying on. I don't know when or where it started, and mostly have tried to ignore your spat. I have not seen any point in getting involved, or of even going back and trying to find the supposed and questioned post by either one of you. I have enough trouble keeping my post square as you well know from our previous experiences. I have been told back in the beginning by my good friends Wilko and riverman, not to say anything on the forum, that you would say to someone face to face. Now seeing that he is a gun nut (your definition) and possibly walks around with his "Assault weapon" armed and ready, it might not be wise to walk up to him and call him a "liar and a coward." So then I find it most profitable to refraim from doing so here on the net as well. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? C'mon Tinkerntom, what type of society are we to build here in rec.boats.paddle if we are not to support the basic building blocks of logical discussion? Shame on you! Now if you wanted to continue a new thread about the advantages of the Canadian Health Care system, sometime in the future, maybe there could be a logical discussion, but I doubt that could happen at this time in this thread. There appears to be to much macho image at risk between the two of you. I will look forward to that discussion, and I hope that I am back on your list of reasonable non cowards! TnT This is about basic integrity Tinkerntom. The topic is really a subordinate issue. It is no different than if rick were to claim that purple kayaks result in increased death rates. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================== The facts are quite clear: In nations where guns are banned, victimization by violent criminals increases dramatically. In the United States, crime victimization by violent criminals is dropping. =============== I'll not dispute your sources and data.... except, as you well know, because you presented this data, the definitions of various sorts of crimes vary considerably from country to country. What may be deemed an assault in one country may not be recorded as an assault in another. Thus, the stats may not be comparable. The stats are entirely comparable. The nations involved have long ago agreed on the definition of "violent crime" and they compile the data in quite similar ways, and they share the data routinely. Thus, whether I'm trying to "bend" the debate is hardly the point. The point is, more or less, a murder, is a murder, is a murder, no matter where we are on the globe. Murder stats are comparable. The others aren't. This is simply a lame attempt on your part to evade the fact that you are wrong by trying to define away the facts. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================= Absolute numbers are less important than the rate of change for gun-owning versus gun-banning societies, something that you deliberately choose to ignore. =================== I'm happy to revisit those statistics to examine rates of change. Like you, I agree that those are valuable and important statistics. Nonetheless, I think absolute figures do matter. Every one of those "absolute" numbers represents some mother's child. Let's not speak of these numbers too lightly. I donąt disagree in principle. Any death, whether homicide or by accident is unfortunate and something to be avoided where possible. The important part is the "where possible." When banning guns actually serves to increase victimization and injury, it seems imprudent to pursue that course as a solution to the problem. The basis of my argument is that whatever the absolute numbers, it is the RATE of CHANGE in those numbers that determines the effectiveness of gun banning schemes. The evidence is very clear that where guns are banned, the RATE of CHANGE of violent crime victimization rises, usually dramatically, resulting in increases of victimization of "some mother's child." On the other hand, in the US, the RATE of CHANGE in violent crime victimization DECREASES substantially in those places where law-abiding citizens are permitted to keep and bear arms for their personal defense. More guns = Less crime. That is a fact. It's an uncontroverted fact. You have never, even once, attempted to controvert that fact, I suspect because you know full well that you cannot do so. That being the case, you are deliberately and dishonestly avoiding admitting that your gun-banning arguments inevitably result in MORE "mother's children" being victimized. That puts paid to your entire argument, which you base on your revulsion of victimization in general, and your dislike for the costs of liberty posed by ubiquitous firearms ownership. In short, you would prefer that MORE "mother's children" be harmed by violent criminals than are harmed by firearms because, illogically, you deem an injury caused by a firearm to be somehow more socially unacceptable than an injury inflicted in some other manner by a violent criminal. (Ignoring for the moment the important fact that the vast majority of firearms injuries are caused by violent armed criminals...and the fact that where citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms, violent armed criminals are much less likely to victimize anyone.) That seems extremely narrow-minded to me. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================= I would not choose to be one of the twenty five percent of Brits who are victimized and traumatized by crime every year.... ================ I concur, neither would I. Then buy a gun, get a concealed carry permit and provide for your own (and coincidentally your neighbor's) protection. That's what I do. That's what hundreds of thousands of Americans do, to very beneficial effect. But, as you well know, crime statistics are not easily compared. What may be recorded as a "crime" in Britain, may be recorded as a nuisance in Canada or the USA. Not when it comes to violent crime in particular, and most property crimes as well. Crime statistics are quite easily compared and you are grasping at straws in a vain attempt to bolster your failed argument. I don't know, and neither do you. Wrong. I do, in fact, know. If we're to talk about "violent crimes" and incidents of "violent crime", then we need to ensure that we're talking about the same thing in each country. We are. Go examine how the FBI and Interpol and other government agencies classify crimes and you will find that they long ago came to agreement about how to define such crimes in ways that permit direct comparisons between countries. This is not a new science, they've been doing it for decades. While the specific statutes and names of some of the crimes change, the definitions are quite homogenous, precisely to permit such direct comparisons and exchange of information. To date, everything that I've read indicates that people much more knowledgeable and you or I are grappling with these comparisons. No they're not. An assault upon a person is the same in GB or Canada as it is here. It consists of the unlawful use of force upon another person. The sub-sets of unarmed and armed, and the sub-sub sets describing the particular weapons used, in particular firearms, are the same in the US, GB, Canada and Australia insofar as international comparisons of violent crime rates and victimization. While the classification for the purposes of criminal prosecution and sentencing may be radically different, even within states in the US, the basic definitions of what constitutes are, with a very few exceptions, functionally identical in all jurisdictions. The international police community wasn't born yesterday. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Michael Daly at wrote on 2/26/05 3:14 PM: On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote: Again, I posted information, Try again - there was nothing in that link that said Canadians are dying in waiting lines. Put up or shut up, dickhead. Mike He's a liar. And a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com