Showing posts with label left rudder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label left rudder. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
An old aquaintance returns!
I'd given up all hope, but the left rudder blog is active again! Going strong with it's proclamation that doing drugs is to be considered law-abiding behavior and the like!
Friday, February 8, 2008
That Cabot Guy, still up to his old tricks.
It started when he'd run out of venom to spit at the gunfacts file, having adressed approximately half a percent of it.
Only days after I blogged about the current state of the UK, he released his own post.
Both of the articles we cite use the very sane study, his just uses a different way of processing data.
Which one is right?
Well, he's got two lines of comment, me, I have a couple of lengthy posts, dealing with the terrible situation in the country, a comprehensive post on how Londeners aren't any safer, a little refresher of how many children got killed in 2007, as well as a myriad of other articles about the UK.
Having refused to allow my follow-up response, guy has now shifted to calling people racists, as can be seen in the edited author of the last reply in his post "Comment by FeroVeritas-Certified Racist — February 6, 2008 @ 4:15 pm"
Only days after I blogged about the current state of the UK, he released his own post.
Both of the articles we cite use the very sane study, his just uses a different way of processing data.
Which one is right?
Well, he's got two lines of comment, me, I have a couple of lengthy posts, dealing with the terrible situation in the country, a comprehensive post on how Londeners aren't any safer, a little refresher of how many children got killed in 2007, as well as a myriad of other articles about the UK.
Having refused to allow my follow-up response, guy has now shifted to calling people racists, as can be seen in the edited author of the last reply in his post "Comment by FeroVeritas-Certified Racist — February 6, 2008 @ 4:15 pm"
Friday, December 14, 2007
On debating: common pitfalls for supporters of gun control
Jadegold has recently released a string of articles on how to debate with gunloons.
I too was on that side of the fence at a time. Oleg Volk changed that, but I can still build a case in favour of gun control, arbitrairy as that case might be. Today I will at least try tell you what NOT to do.
First of all you should get familliar with the issue. Failure to be familliar with the issue may result in a complete loss of credibility and talking around the issue will not convince anybody. Typical mistakes incorporate using hollywood slang for technical firearm terminology. The most common mistake is using the words magazine and clip as if they were interchangeable. They might be in real life, but not in legislation. Being able to distinguish a revolver from an automatic pistol, knowing the difference between a (semi)automatic or selfloading weapon, and a fully automatic one is the bare minimum.
Knowing what an "assault" weapon is, is another can of worms alltoghether. It's a risky endaveour calling any weapon an assault weapon, so it's best to refer to a a gun by its action (bolt action, semiautomatic, fully automatic, pump action, ...) The Brady campaign originally defined what an assault weapon was, but has over time they have labeled other weapons as assault weapons, even though they were not subject to the assault weapons ban, or would have been if the ban would still have been in effect. To make matters even worse, there are other definitions as well, such as military or corporate designations, as well as other names for the same weapons, and the police might call their own something entirely different still, like patrol rifle (and that is in turn a way of referring to one specific rifle, the FN patrol bolt rifle)
It's easy to get caught up in word games, and somebody who's in contact with firearms on a daily basis is likely to have the advantage over you on that front.
It's very important to realize that the gun rights activists have more statistics to support them that any gun control activist can ever dream up, primarely because gun control means change, and even when statistics only show irrelevance, it supports the arguement that gun control is not needed. Both the Brady campaign and the violence policy center provide a vast amount of statistical data, but like I said: The gun rights groups have more, much more. In the gunfacts file you're likely to find out what's wrong with those numbers. Gun rights activists know these texts all too well, and if you're sitting down on a debating table expecting to baffle your adversairy with numbers, you'll likely have all your arguements turned against you.
To illustrate that: The US is has the best armed civillian population in the entire world, and one of the highest homicide rates as well, there is however no absolute correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate, or violent crime rate. So, never say that guns cause crime, you cannot prove that, just like your adversary cannot prove that guns reduce crime. The only way to deal with this issue is to shift the burden of justification, demanding why people insist on keeping arms. This will land you in an arbitrary debate, your wishes versus theirs, a debate without end.
Clear pitfalls:
Never say that there wouldn't be any mass killings without guns, you'll be met by a mention of the Oklahoma city bombing or the mass school stabbing in Japan. Instead say that a lot of people might still be alive today if it weren't for guns. This puts you in the field of tealeaves, becaue we have no way of telling if a killer would have carried through with his plans if there had been no guns at his disposal.
Never blame a specific type of gun or call any gun "better than another". The recent shootings in Nebraska and Colorado have rekindeled the discussion on assault rifles. Cho, the gunman of the VTech massacre didn't use a rifle to be the bloodiest school killer in the history of the US, so don't put the blame for mass shootings with these weapons.
Avoid bringing up other countries that have succesfully implemented gun control legislation, anybody who debated seriously in favor of gun rights will be able to cite several government studies showing that such legislation hasn't made their population any safer.
Don't try to make a case in favor of less than lethal weapons, there has been a string of fatalities tied to such weapons recently. Furthermore, a lot of these weapons are already banned under state law in a lot of places in the US (PAVA capsules for example are illegal in six states). Also, a gun rights activist is likely to expose these as not a valid means of self defence, as well as bringing up the recreational use of guns which isn't replaced by these alternatives either.
Maybe I'll type some more later.
And before you say it, yes I know you see what I did here.
I too was on that side of the fence at a time. Oleg Volk changed that, but I can still build a case in favour of gun control, arbitrairy as that case might be. Today I will at least try tell you what NOT to do.
First of all you should get familliar with the issue. Failure to be familliar with the issue may result in a complete loss of credibility and talking around the issue will not convince anybody. Typical mistakes incorporate using hollywood slang for technical firearm terminology. The most common mistake is using the words magazine and clip as if they were interchangeable. They might be in real life, but not in legislation. Being able to distinguish a revolver from an automatic pistol, knowing the difference between a (semi)automatic or selfloading weapon, and a fully automatic one is the bare minimum.
Knowing what an "assault" weapon is, is another can of worms alltoghether. It's a risky endaveour calling any weapon an assault weapon, so it's best to refer to a a gun by its action (bolt action, semiautomatic, fully automatic, pump action, ...) The Brady campaign originally defined what an assault weapon was, but has over time they have labeled other weapons as assault weapons, even though they were not subject to the assault weapons ban, or would have been if the ban would still have been in effect. To make matters even worse, there are other definitions as well, such as military or corporate designations, as well as other names for the same weapons, and the police might call their own something entirely different still, like patrol rifle (and that is in turn a way of referring to one specific rifle, the FN patrol bolt rifle)
It's easy to get caught up in word games, and somebody who's in contact with firearms on a daily basis is likely to have the advantage over you on that front.
It's very important to realize that the gun rights activists have more statistics to support them that any gun control activist can ever dream up, primarely because gun control means change, and even when statistics only show irrelevance, it supports the arguement that gun control is not needed. Both the Brady campaign and the violence policy center provide a vast amount of statistical data, but like I said: The gun rights groups have more, much more. In the gunfacts file you're likely to find out what's wrong with those numbers. Gun rights activists know these texts all too well, and if you're sitting down on a debating table expecting to baffle your adversairy with numbers, you'll likely have all your arguements turned against you.
To illustrate that: The US is has the best armed civillian population in the entire world, and one of the highest homicide rates as well, there is however no absolute correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate, or violent crime rate. So, never say that guns cause crime, you cannot prove that, just like your adversary cannot prove that guns reduce crime. The only way to deal with this issue is to shift the burden of justification, demanding why people insist on keeping arms. This will land you in an arbitrary debate, your wishes versus theirs, a debate without end.
Clear pitfalls:
Never say that there wouldn't be any mass killings without guns, you'll be met by a mention of the Oklahoma city bombing or the mass school stabbing in Japan. Instead say that a lot of people might still be alive today if it weren't for guns. This puts you in the field of tealeaves, becaue we have no way of telling if a killer would have carried through with his plans if there had been no guns at his disposal.
Never blame a specific type of gun or call any gun "better than another". The recent shootings in Nebraska and Colorado have rekindeled the discussion on assault rifles. Cho, the gunman of the VTech massacre didn't use a rifle to be the bloodiest school killer in the history of the US, so don't put the blame for mass shootings with these weapons.
Avoid bringing up other countries that have succesfully implemented gun control legislation, anybody who debated seriously in favor of gun rights will be able to cite several government studies showing that such legislation hasn't made their population any safer.
Don't try to make a case in favor of less than lethal weapons, there has been a string of fatalities tied to such weapons recently. Furthermore, a lot of these weapons are already banned under state law in a lot of places in the US (PAVA capsules for example are illegal in six states). Also, a gun rights activist is likely to expose these as not a valid means of self defence, as well as bringing up the recreational use of guns which isn't replaced by these alternatives either.
Maybe I'll type some more later.
And before you say it, yes I know you see what I did here.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Dealing with violent crime in the UK
There's been a couple of people bringing up the UK recently, on "beggars can be choosers" and "the left rudder" to be exact.
So I went looking: how well ARE they doing?
Their prisons could be doing better I suppose, as there's been a little row recently when a prison guard was found involved with a narcotics ring which fueled violence behind bars.
Oh well, you're bound to have at least one prison compromised right?
How's life outside of prison today then?
Without leaving the BBC's site, I could find two reports on violent crime:
A story about an 18 year old getting stabbed to death, and the tale of a senior citizen violently robbed by a gang of thugs ...
Now that's just today, feel free to click the "UK" label underneath this post to read other articles of violence in the UK, and about their failing legal system.
What about the bigger picture, how has the UK been doing as a whole?
At page 48 of the Violent Crime Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/2005, published by the Home office, we can clearly see that homicide has generally been on the increase since over half a century!
It had declined in 2005, but the use of guns was on the increase despite the gun bans and restrictions. This trend was maintained according to "Crime in England and Wales" (p71) It must be noted that these firearm offences aren't all shootings, there are simply much more punishable actions involving firearms these days.
The UK is not a peaceful place. Even with violent crime as a whole in decline, the amount of people killed or otherwise faced with violence is alarmingly high, and don't let anybody convice you otherwise unless they have the facts to back it up!
So I went looking: how well ARE they doing?
Their prisons could be doing better I suppose, as there's been a little row recently when a prison guard was found involved with a narcotics ring which fueled violence behind bars.
Oh well, you're bound to have at least one prison compromised right?
How's life outside of prison today then?
Without leaving the BBC's site, I could find two reports on violent crime:
A story about an 18 year old getting stabbed to death, and the tale of a senior citizen violently robbed by a gang of thugs ...
Now that's just today, feel free to click the "UK" label underneath this post to read other articles of violence in the UK, and about their failing legal system.
What about the bigger picture, how has the UK been doing as a whole?
At page 48 of the Violent Crime Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/2005, published by the Home office, we can clearly see that homicide has generally been on the increase since over half a century!
It had declined in 2005, but the use of guns was on the increase despite the gun bans and restrictions. This trend was maintained according to "Crime in England and Wales" (p71) It must be noted that these firearm offences aren't all shootings, there are simply much more punishable actions involving firearms these days.
The UK is not a peaceful place. Even with violent crime as a whole in decline, the amount of people killed or otherwise faced with violence is alarmingly high, and don't let anybody convice you otherwise unless they have the facts to back it up!
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Jadegold cornered?
At one time I accused Jadegold of being a hypocrite, off to do so again:
In this post, he/she said:
"When it’s pointed out that countries with strict gun control have amazingly low gun homicide numbers (e.g., Japan in 2005 had 19 firearm-related homicides, etc.)–the gunloons go nuts (well, more nuts) and pretend the Japanese are of a different species."
Our obvious response is, obviously, to point out that their are plenty of countries with less guns and more homicides. Should be clear seeing as the US has the most heavily armed civilian population, but is the 24th in line for most homicides per capita. 14th in number of fire-arm related homicides. I pointed out (check two posts back) that there are countries in south America that are far worse off than we are when plotting out gun ownership vs Homicide.
What did Jade reply?:
"Yes, we’re number 13 behind places like Columbia, Brazil, Jamaica and Honduras. Pretty good company. Yup, we want to be measured against a country like Columbia or Jamaica than, say, a Germany or UK. (comment 18)"
So, the Japanese are the same species as we are, and the Brazilians aren't? The Colombians and South Africans are a different breed of human than we are, but we are exactly like the British and Germans?
In this post, he/she said:
"When it’s pointed out that countries with strict gun control have amazingly low gun homicide numbers (e.g., Japan in 2005 had 19 firearm-related homicides, etc.)–the gunloons go nuts (well, more nuts) and pretend the Japanese are of a different species."
Our obvious response is, obviously, to point out that their are plenty of countries with less guns and more homicides. Should be clear seeing as the US has the most heavily armed civilian population, but is the 24th in line for most homicides per capita. 14th in number of fire-arm related homicides. I pointed out (check two posts back) that there are countries in south America that are far worse off than we are when plotting out gun ownership vs Homicide.
What did Jade reply?:
"Yes, we’re number 13 behind places like Columbia, Brazil, Jamaica and Honduras. Pretty good company. Yup, we want to be measured against a country like Columbia or Jamaica than, say, a Germany or UK. (comment 18)"
So, the Japanese are the same species as we are, and the Brazilians aren't? The Colombians and South Africans are a different breed of human than we are, but we are exactly like the British and Germans?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Jadegold lying about statistics
So, Jadegold published a post claiming that us "gunloons" hate to consider the fact that countries with strict gun legislation supposedly have lower homicide rates than the US.
Supposedly, because I already disproved that months ago in an article called "How many guns does it take to kill a man" Now, I was not born an avid supporter of the second amendment, as a matter of fact, I long supported what I believed to be "common sense" gun laws. But I studied the subject, and found that my ideas were wrong.
Looking for a correlation between civilian gun ownership and the homicide rates was one of the things I did to realize that we cannot blame guns, or as I said back in September:
"The cause of our murder epidemic is not that people own a large amount of firearms, the problem lies with the small minority willing to abuse them."
-cheesy self-quote
Oh well, here's a nice little graph to ponder over, the amount of homicides per 1000 guns.
(Mexico, South Africa and Colombia omitted, their values (0.9 3.8 and 8.6 in that order) were completely off the charts.
Wonder what part two will bring us ...
Supposedly, because I already disproved that months ago in an article called "How many guns does it take to kill a man" Now, I was not born an avid supporter of the second amendment, as a matter of fact, I long supported what I believed to be "common sense" gun laws. But I studied the subject, and found that my ideas were wrong.
Looking for a correlation between civilian gun ownership and the homicide rates was one of the things I did to realize that we cannot blame guns, or as I said back in September:
"The cause of our murder epidemic is not that people own a large amount of firearms, the problem lies with the small minority willing to abuse them."
-cheesy self-quote
Oh well, here's a nice little graph to ponder over, the amount of homicides per 1000 guns.
(Mexico, South Africa and Colombia omitted, their values (0.9 3.8 and 8.6 in that order) were completely off the charts.
Wonder what part two will bring us ...
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The supposed effects of the DC gun ban.
One of the first things I did when starting this blog, was warn people about causal relationships.
This has come forward recently in a left rudder post, the author has posted a graph of the DC murder rate. (she sais that the Bureau of Justice Statistics has sourced these, but has failed to provide me with a link). The FBI's uniform crime report puts the count of murder and non-unintentional homicides at 195 and 198 for 2004 and 2005 for DC
She's replying to a deltoïd post, where the author has posted this link, but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment.
Anyway,
The issue at hand: can the DC murder rate (and by extension:crime rate) be caused by the current gun politics?
If it turns out that the murder rate went down, then I don't think so. See, the law bans most guns used for DC murder, so the street availability of guns did not decrease and so: it could not have been an important factor.
But like I said: It's currently very high, which can be a consequence of the reduced amount of people carrying concealed weapons. Of course it's just as impossible of establishing causal relationship here.
I'm currently going through the usdoj myself looking for a complete set of numbers, to get a better picture of the situation, Bureau of Justice Statistics is up next
You should too: always question statistics in the form they are presented to you!
Here's the graph I made from the figures found here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
I really wish that site cited its sources, the last two numbers check out with the FBI, but I don't know if it's all correct.
If this is correct, you can see that the gun ban didn't have all that much effect on the murder count (note: this isn't the murder rate). The surge in violence takes place almost ten years later, which is hardly a reason to blame that specific event in gun law legislation.
The gun ban didn't save or destroy lives, all that it's been proven to have done, is cost the taxpayer money.
This has come forward recently in a left rudder post, the author has posted a graph of the DC murder rate. (she sais that the Bureau of Justice Statistics has sourced these, but has failed to provide me with a link). The FBI's uniform crime report puts the count of murder and non-unintentional homicides at 195 and 198 for 2004 and 2005 for DC
She's replying to a deltoïd post, where the author has posted this link, but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment.
Anyway,
The issue at hand: can the DC murder rate (and by extension:crime rate) be caused by the current gun politics?
If it turns out that the murder rate went down, then I don't think so. See, the law bans most guns used for DC murder, so the street availability of guns did not decrease and so: it could not have been an important factor.
But like I said: It's currently very high, which can be a consequence of the reduced amount of people carrying concealed weapons. Of course it's just as impossible of establishing causal relationship here.
I'm currently going through the usdoj myself looking for a complete set of numbers, to get a better picture of the situation, Bureau of Justice Statistics is up next
You should too: always question statistics in the form they are presented to you!
Here's the graph I made from the figures found here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
I really wish that site cited its sources, the last two numbers check out with the FBI, but I don't know if it's all correct.
If this is correct, you can see that the gun ban didn't have all that much effect on the murder count (note: this isn't the murder rate). The surge in violence takes place almost ten years later, which is hardly a reason to blame that specific event in gun law legislation.
The gun ban didn't save or destroy lives, all that it's been proven to have done, is cost the taxpayer money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)