Guncrazy USA

**

I’m guessing this work will be a waste of time (again) as I know from experience and shown in many examples if you find something difficult to address you just ignore it.

**



…and for the teenagers a short NRA sponsored sex educational film entitled ‘Cocked, loaded and ready to shoot: but should you pull the trigger’ …

…But first another sermon from that scourge of the heathen and tormentor of the infidel, the holy Brother Pitt and his subject today is that syphilitic boil on the face of truth, that pox in the body of the enlightened, Balbus the carnal…




**

 

Dear Brother Pitt

Boo hoo hoo? You didn’t really have an answer there did you?

Was there a question in there because all I saw was the same old wining you copied/pasted over the last several posts.

Well lets see, was there?

**

“I mean mate what is the point of me saying anything if you are just going to ignore me?

This puts me at a sever disadvantage when dealing with you, you can say anything however untruthful and I continue to try and be fair and even.

I’ve shown many examples of you ignoring my answer when it suits you but another of your tricks is to ignore you have acknowledged and accepted my answers.

For example –

You say

Lmfao yeah yeah just like you didn’t call for a “ban” on guns when I showed you that in fact you did call for a ban that took place over time.
Can’t import them
Can’t manufacture them
After they reach a certain age they are disabled.
What else would you call this.

But we have been through this many, many times -

Take Post 953 of this thread posted June 5th 2007 (not the only example just one picked at random)
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/sho...0&page=96&pp=10

But the accusation and the fact it isn’t true actually goes back to September of 2006 and has been brought up many times before and after June.

But this is the problem – you make an accusation – I point out it isn’t true – you eventually acknowledge it isn’t true (to quote you - “I know you are not for an all out ban”) – then later when you wish to portray me as a supporter for an ‘all out ban’ you make the exact same accusation you’ve acknowledged isn’t true.

Untruthful yes, dishonest yes, the work of someone with no honour, yes.

But then that’s what I’ve come to expect, you’re the believer and anything is legitimate to crush the unbelievers.

I’ve shown time and again that I’ve answered your questions but it makes no difference and in the meantime do you answer any of mine, no.

So what is the point this, it isn’t a debate it is you trying to kick down someone that doesn’t agree with you.

So what is the point if you will basically lie and cheat to try and win advantage while others don’t?

Have you an answer?

**

 

Thing is that I don’t really care if people believe me or not,

Well that’s a good thing since I have asked you the same question about DGU’s time after time and you have never answered.

I have answered, but you don’t wish to accept what I’m saying or are unable to address the points raised so you are ignoring it.

Again there seems little point me saying anything if you ignore it if it isn’t what you want?

**

can back up my claims time after time with examples showing exactly how deceitful you can be - while you never do, even when asked.

Then I’m sure you can show where you have answered this question which has been asked over and over.

Considering all the studies showing numbers measuring between 60,000 and 2,500,000 lets just pick out the lowest of 60,000. If there were 60,000 fewer DGU’s does it not stand to reason there would be an additional 60,000 crimes committed?

(Simple logic tells you this is true)

Now if there were an additional 60,000 crimes would the US be a more or less healthy society?

I’ve done it, but you don’t wish to accept what I’m saying or are able to address the points raised so you are ignoring it.

Again there seems little point me saying anything if you ignore it if it isn’t what you want?


**

But I’ve said I’m not calling for a total ban hundreds, possibly thousands, of times in the last year – you have even admitted that I’m not.

I have admitted you have withdrawn that proposal yes. You have yet to even admit you made such a proposal. So who is the more dishonest here?

What?

It’s still there, clearly posted by me, I’ve even told people where it is.

This is complete bull shit.

Again this is clear evidence that you are so desperate to score point and ‘win’ that you’ll say just about anything.

----------

 

I’ve made it very clear that I’m not opposed to people defending themselves but for me DGU’s are not something to be celebrated.

Again this goes back to the question above you have never answered. Which is better to have a DGU or to have another burglary, assault, rape or mugging?

I have answered, but it is an answer you do not wish to accept or are able to address so you are ignoring it.

It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I repeat things or in what way I repeat them if it isn’t what you want you just go on ignoring it.

-----------

But every time someone pulls a gun there are consequences, some unseen, there is always the possibility of people getting injured or killed unnecessarily.

But every time someone starts to drive their car there are consequences, some unseen, there is always the possibility of people getting injured or killed unnecessarily.

And every time you get out of bed – but beds and cars were not designed as weapons.

We have been through this before on a number of occasions it’s and apple and orange argument, it doesn’t actually go anywhere.

**

My view and my aim is to make people feel secure enough that they don’t even feel they need guns to protect them, thereby bring down the number of DGU’s taking place.

And to do this you would lower CRIME not spend billions on ineffective and useless and unproven laws.

It is your opinion that they would be ineffective and useless but what you base that opinion on is only an interpretation of what could or could not happen.

We have been through this many times and you are ignoring all the things we’ve already talked about on the subject as well as the many criticisms and counter arguments opposing your view that remain outstanding.

What is the point of me repeating myself when you’ve already ignored what I’ve said in the past and again now.

**

You seem to be promoting fear, by constantly and consistently going on about the possibilities of being attacked,

Possibility yes probability no unless you are in certain situations. The statement might not fit in with your fairy tale world but it is reality. You have not denied this or proven this wrong.

But your answer to the question of how to deal with crime is to turn to the gun.

We have been through this many times already... there seem little point in me repeating myself over and over if you are simply never going to listen?

**

This is exactly what I predicted - you are trying to declare an opinion as a fact that ‘defeats’ my arguments, just because I haven’t contended it.

The facts are below for you to read.

Again this is your absolutist believer viewpoint – “The facts are below” – you don’t say your criticisms or counter arguments to what I’ve said are below. To you what you think is ‘fact’ and what other people think is incorrect opinion.

If it isn’t what you believe is true it must be wrong.

**

 

The problem is the variables involved in any comparison of direct data between differing data collection areas and groups.

Again something you fall back on when it suits YOU. You have compared the crime rates and especially murder rates between the UK and the US hundreds of times. Yet when the numbers look bad for your side you cry foul and scream you can’t do that.

This isn’t refuting what I’ve said; in fact you seem to be accepting it only claiming I don’t abide by it. But you don’t seem able to back that statement up. I’ve made it very clear after on many occasions that the figures I’ve presented need to take into account the possible variables involved.

**

This needs to be read carefully and understood, which I think was the problem the first time I printed an earlier version (even with the many explanations that followed on from it)

You are trying to compare directly the US and English figures without taking note let alone account of any of these many, many variables.

It makes things simple but as I’ve warned you often life is seldom simple and very rarely if ever a case of black and white.

Also this discrepancy does not apply to these numbers as you are looking at percentages of a crime that involve a victim being home with those where a victim is not home. There are no variables to be confused. They were either home or not.

You didn’t read the post did you?

If you had you’d realise that statement doesn’t make sense.

Try reading it again

Thing is this is the problem we had last time – if something shows your argument is possibly flawed you don’t confront it you just ignore it.

There is the problem of methodology and definition

As in

"There is some confusion in what is counted as a recorded crime......(there are) two contrasting approaches to recording crimes that are currently in use by police forces. The first is a "prima facie" approach, by which the police accept all crime reports at face value and seek to include in their crime figures every apparent criminal event that comes to their attention. The second approach is the more traditional one, termed the "evidential", whereby the police sift and evaluate those events reported to them and only in those cases where they believe on the basis of the known facts that a crime has actually taken place do the police then record a crime. ......the lack of consistency makes it impossible to compare forces in a reliable fashion."
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-7.html

or

“In New Hampshire, for example, an attempted burglary is counted locally as a burglary | but not necessarily when it's tabulated in a federal database”
http://www.derrynews.com/crimecourt/local_story_283091910.html

Then there are other factors like population density, social mix proximity, unemployment rates, demographics and so on and so on.

I mean just look at the difference between the Survey estimated amount of burglaries for 2006 (726,000) and the official police records (292,285)

**

 

“hot” burglary is an attempted or successful burglary of a residence in which the residence is occupied.

Whose definition is this?

You can quibble all you want “hot” is a descriptive term for the above. It is plain from looking at the report from the BCS how many there are. You can ignore this all you want but it will not change the fact.

Again you’re just not listening –

Where does this definition come from?

I mean it doesn’t seem to fit in with other definitions who seem to equate it with ‘home invasion’ which itself isn’t that well defined although there are definition of it form Canada such as - “Home invasion is the forcable entry into a home with the specific intent to attack the occupants, usually for the purpose of theft, but occasionally for abduction, extortion, rape or murder”

As I said if there is no actual definition it seems difficult to work out how many took place and how any comparisons can be made.

I guess it took you 2 days to figure out how you might be able to worm out of this question.

You mean the trip with my partner to Ely cathedral to see the harvest festival display? Sorry but for the whole time I didn’t give you a moment’s thought.

**

 

So we come to the US figures and frankly where are they?

Are you asking me to do the research to prove it wrong?

This is not just a mater of laziness it smells like another dishonest trick.

The words in blue are my own throwing back at me, the problem is that the context is completely different.

It was you that quoted something and said that you didn’t know if it was true or not and then said - “balbus I invite you to see if you can find anything about the rate yourself and post thoughts of why there would be such a large difference if true”

You don’t seem to have made any attempt to see if it is true or not.

This is an old trick –

Mr A – says – “I’ve heard that you are corrupt (a coward, a sexual deviant, a murderer, ete etc) I don’t know if it is true, but if it is, then people shouldn’t like you”

The slander or untruth is easy to say and doesn’t have to be backed up in any way but it means the victim wastes a lot of time proving that something that is a lie is in fact a lie.

It’s often used by dishonourable politicians and debaters who don’t have a strong argument.

I mean you can make up the grossest of falsehoods for example – Gun owners are 21% more likely to be convicted on child abuse charges than those that don’t own guns.

The thing is that if this lie is repeated on websites enough times – say a thousand or more times - some really dumb and gullible fools will just accept it without any verification and repeat it as if it was a ‘fact’

It then ends up being quoted on forum like these with someone saying – I’m looking for the source but just think gun owners are over 20% more likely to be paedophiles’

And if someone contest it and says they find it suspect without evidence?

Well it is likely they might get a reply like this – Oh yeh and the thousands of websites posting this are just wrong it’s all made up and you the great disputer have shown it to be false when no one else on the planet could.



**

 

54% - no one was at home

46% - someone was at home

Kind of self explanatory what they are referring to isn’t it?

You didn’t read the rest of what I put or did you not understand it?

----------

But 14% of the 46% was a partner or ex-partner of the victim someone known to them.

Ohhh well that make it all ok now then doesn’t it?

You miss the point again.

-----------

So we are now down to about 23%

After all of your figuring and giving excuses that is Still much higher percentage than the TOTAL US rate now isn’t it?

But at the moment there is no “TOTAL US rate” there is a figure that for all we know could have been picked out of the air, completely made up.

Again this is the problem if it suits your argument even unverified and possibly untrue things become – FACT.

While you denigrate or ignore things that don’t seem to back up your view

The full sentence is – So we are now down to about 23% -16% where the occupant was aware of the burglary and the burglar had entered the house.

Strange how that “– 16%” got left out?

I then go on and say -

Now we have some cross over in these statistics (the con artist burglar gains entry through deceit, robbers only being glimpsed when leaving) which means that basically we are talking about a figure from 18 – 10 % where the occupant was aware of the burglary as a burglar - the burglar had entered the house and the two met.

Again this is left out and unaddressed.

For you it isn’t about an honest discussion of the issues it’s about scoring points

-----------

Again this seems like misdirection based on innuendo.

So prove this misdirection and innuendo wrong.

Until verified and backed up it is suspect, I’ve looked and cannot find verification and nor does it seem can you, so as I’ve said it could have just been made up or based on dubious information.

Again this seem to be a big problem with you, if it suits your argument even unverified and possibly untrue things become in you mind complete and unquestionable FACT.

----------

Britain has a “"hot" burglary rate near 45% - what are hot burglaries?

If you would have read the posted reference it would be very obvious.

What posted reference – the problem is that there seem to be differing views as to what constitutes a ‘hot burglary’ I’ve explained this and given examples.

And as I go on to say - And the figures don’t seem correct if you actually look at the data from 1998 and burglaries in England and Wales have dropped since then.

---------

And the figures don’t seem correct if you actually look at the data from 1998 and burglaries in England and Wales have dropped since then.

Yet this has NOTHING to do with the overall rates now does it? Just Another attempt at misdirection.

You mean the percentage rates – but read your cut and past – it talks of increases in overall numbers based on the percentage – my point is that that number would be very wrong if more modern records were used.

Again you don’t seem to be paying attention to what’s being said, your main concern is to try and score points rather than seek the correct answer.

--------

I’m guessing this work will be a waste of time (again) as I know from experience and shown in many examples if you find something difficult to address you just ignore it.

Kind of like not answering the question of what else explains it?

Explains what?

I see so you just say it does not exist. The thousands of websites posting this are just wrong it’s all made up and you the great balbus have shown it to be false when no one else on the planet could.

So if enough websites say something, anything, you believe it must be true?

Do you think that is an intelligent position to take?

And I’m not saying it is true or false but just that it doesn’t seem to be backed up with anything that can be verified or examined.

**

 

Balbus says he does not want a gun ban. Yet he continues to call for ever increasing restrictions in an effort to remove as many guns as possible. The only problem is that none of these restrictions will effect those (the criminals) that will misuse the guns.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you haven’t actually shown it to be true, in fact you seemed to have ignored evidence to the contrary.

Balbus says he only wants restrictions on people that shouldn’t have guns yet all his proposals impact everyone even the law abiding.

Changes in laws bring about changes, I haven’t claimed differently.

Balbus promotes the idea that gun bans/restrictions will have positive impacts on society yet he cannot give an example where this has occurred although bans/restrictions have taken place throughout history.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you haven’t actually shown it to be true, in fact you seemed to have ignored evidence to the contrary.

Balbus says less guns = less gun crime yet again where is his example showing this to be true?

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you haven’t actually shown it to be true, in fact you seemed to have ignored evidence to the contrary.

Balbus always talks about “gun” crime and “Gun” murder yet when asked how his restrictions effect “MURDER’ and “CRIME” he has nothing to say. He continues to refer back to the “gun” restrictions

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you haven’t actually shown it to be true, in fact you seemed to have ignored evidence to the contrary.

When asked about DGU’s he only says they indicate a problem with society yet he never answers when asked about the impact on society if those crimes stopped by DGU’s were to happen instead of being stopped.

I’ve answered this you just refuse to address what I’ve said.

Balbus says you cannot compare stats from different countries yet he continually does so himself.

I do, but I’ve make it clear the problems in such comparisons and the differing contexts. I’ve done this many times, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

When confronted with stats in the UK balbus again says you cannot compare different countries yet the stats are only from one country pre and post ban. Such as this report from the MPA dated 3 May 2007. 15. The increase in the number of individuals that are victims of Trident murders and shootings under the age of 20 is detailed as follows:
• 2003 – 31 Trident Murders and Shootings,
• 2004 – 39 Trident Murders and Shootings,
• 2005 – 82 Trident Murders and Shootings,
• 2006 – 79 Trident Murders and Shootings.
Note the Dunblane ban began in 1997 yet these type of incidents continue to increase.

This is rather disingenuous.

What is being claimed that the number of shooting incidents would have been higher or lower without the hand gun ban?

What is proved?

When confronted with the facts that most gun crime and murder take place in the states with the strictest gun control compared to states will less restrictive gun control balbus either ignores this or again starts comparing the US with the UK.

But the problem is the interpretation then put on the supposed ‘facts’, we have been through that.

When confronted by a list of concerns and problems with one of his proposals balbus just says they are not real concerns instead of addressing them. This shows that he really has no concern of the real world consequences of his proposals as long as there are fewer guns.

But the problem was these ‘concerns’ were not really overwhelming reasons why not to try mandatory gun safes, it was nit picking. If you really want me to show how weak they are I’m happy to do so.

He talks about banning certain “types” of guns like “battlefield” or “assault” weapons. Yet balbus even somewhat admits he don’t even know what these terms really mean. When shown a video of taking a regular hunting rifle and “converting” it to an “assault weapon” in less than 2 minutes by making cosmetic changes ONLY he ignores this. Again showing his only concern is having fewer weapons no matter what.

I’ve said many times I bow to your superior knowledge on guns, what can I say.

So once and for all balbus

1. Considering all the studies showing numbers measuring between 60,000 and 2,500,000 lets just pick out the lowest of 60,000. If there were 60,000 fewer DGU’s does it not stand to reason there would be an additional 60,000 crimes committed?

(Simple logic tells you this is true)

Now if there were an additional 60,000 crimes would the US be a more or less healthy society?

Fuck it Pitt whatever answer I give, you’ve just going to ignore it since it isn’t the one you want – what is the point of this – your view is that because guns ‘stopped’ 60,000 crimes, guns are a good thing – I think that it would be better to not concentrate on guns but on other means of tackling crime.

2. Where is the shining example of where a gun ban/restriction had a positive impact on the intended outcome of the ban/restriction?

What do you mean by “intended outcome of the ban/restriction”?

3. What other explanation is there for the fact that there are many times more burglaries and burglary attempts in the UK where people are present than there are in the US PERCENTAGE wise comparing the UK with the UK and the US with the US?

But that is unknown because the supposed US figure you are talking about could have just been made up (see above).
Also other variables then come into play that make that viewpoint hard to prove.

4. How do you explain the fact that GUN crime has continued to rise (as reported by the Home Office) in the UK since the Dunblane gun ban?

Well again you have ignored me when I’ve repeatedly and clearly told you that I do not support many of the policies in relation to crime that have been implemented by successive British governments. And also the question doesn’t make sense because it is unknown what would have been the outcome without the ban.

5. How do you explain that the most crime and murder takes place in states where the most restrictive gun laws are present?

You have already done this – “When confronted with the facts that most gun crime and murder take place in the states with the strictest gun control compared to states will less restrictive gun control”

Come on man get a grip

6. If guns are not a deterrent how do you explain the fact the criminals’ state that it is a deterrent?

Oh hell Pitt we have been through this at length – here are a few cut and pastes from other posts -

If all the possible victims are armed, but reason for the criminal turning to crime is still there, the criminal will still want to commit the crime. Now given the relative ease of the availability of guns in the US don’t you think that the type of criminal that would attack someone is likely to also get a gun?

To you it seems the DGU’s are a good thing because it shows guns being used to tackle crime.

But the UK doesn’t have the high level of gun ownership but most crime figures in nearly all areas when statistical variables are taken into account are roughly the same.

(In the last few posts I’ve shown this in relation to rape, burglary and assault)

So guns don’t seem to be working as a deterrent and even with them, the figures are not that different.

Except in one area where there is a huge difference, gun related homicides.
So what Pitt, that’s not a reply that’s point scoring.

The question again – Is the higher gun ownership level a deterrent to crime in the US?

Remembering that, the US has about the same level of ‘normal’ crime as the UK?

It seems to me that the only thing the US’s easier access to guns has brought about is higher levels of gun crime, because as you agree Americans are more likely to use guns for crimes and murder.
Again I have answered this, If one considers the numbers of DGU’s and the direct interviews with criminals it seems apparent that law abiding people having guns is somewhat of a deterrent.

But that doesn’t seem to fit in with the points I’ve raised, if gun ownership was such a deterrent to crime, the US’s crime figures should be very much greater than they are.
But in reality they seem to be about roughly the same except in one area –gun related crime – where it is actually the US which has very much higher figures.
But the point being made was that if guns are a deterrent it seemed the US could only keep non gun crime down to the levels of a country with very little gun ownership by the use of guns as a suppressant.

But that the US seems to pay for this in terms of gun crime, because as you agree Americans seem more likely to use guns for crime.

Neither you nor the studies seem to cover this and as I’ve asked already if you know of some that do please produce them because I’d be very interested to seeing the argument.

Then explain the fucking stats that show in the US where gun laws are the most restrictive the violent crime rate including murder is the HIGHEST and where the gun laws are less restrictive the violent crime rate including murder is the LOWEST?
Another FACT you ignore

Which stats are you talking about? Let’s examine them, I think you have alluded to some but never given the statistic they were based on.

And we first went through something similar back in September 2006 and you’ve brought it up a few times since then and you still haven’t really addressed what I said way back do you remember the thing about Connecticut don’t you?

So what you are saying is that you take two different countries, one with guns and one without and the crime levels are basically the same. You determine this to mean guns do not protect against crime. While I say it could also mean gun availability appears to have NO IMPACT on crime levels so why the cry to further restrict.

But your argument has been that guns are a deterrent to criminals to quote you “That is the point of CCW is it not. The criminal does not know when he will run into an armed individual giving him one more reason to hesitate on the act in the first place”

But as pointed out this doesn’t seem to be the case.

But we have been through this you contend that widespread legal gun ownership is a deterrent to criminals but this just doesn’t seem the case.

LMFAO where did I say this

Why laugh? You said it here “That is the point of CCW is it not. The criminal does not know when he will run into an armed individual giving him one more reason to hesitate on the act in the first place”

**

7. And the most important how do you intend to get the criminals to comply with gun laws?

What?

**

 

Pitt

All you are doing is repeating the same things over and over without ever answering the questions, addressing the criticisms or replying to counter arguments.

What is the point – I don’t know if your viewpoints have validity because you just refuse point blank to discuss them – all you want is blind acceptance and if I don’t give it you just say the same flawed statements over and over –

What’s the point – why do you find my opposition so threatening – why do you feel that you have to crush me or convert me?

Yours

Balbus

 

Oh my

1) So lets get this right I clearly say I drop the proposals and have reiterated several times that I’m not calling for a complete ban on guns and in your opinion that makes people unsure of what I’m saying?

2) I don’t know what you understand by ‘off the top of my head’ but I think to most people it isn’t a strong indication that the thing being said hasn’t been given indepth thought. As I’ve said they were just something to stimulate debate.

How many times have I asked you the question about DGU’s

We’ve done the DGU’s thing to death – I keep giving you my answers – you don’t accept them as an answer because they’re not the answer you want.


**

 

i lived most of my life in new zealand..........no guns except rifles for game shooting.
i originally came from the UK.
same scene........extremely taut gun laws.
france has guns galore..one can buy any type of firearm, a licence must be obtained but is not difficult....gun crime is miniscule compared to the US.
the rest of europe has strict gun laws.......and so it goes on.
the US is the only society in the world where obtaining firearms legally, is soooo easy.....
and the whole world watches the mayhem they cause......
and wonders.

 

To Pitt the merciless

I have answered, but you don’t wish to accept what I’m saying or are unable to address the points raised so you are ignoring it.

Where did you answer it? Show us all where you did this?

Just pick somewhere from about six months ago and read on, anyone looking will find them repeated over and over – the problem is that it doesn’t seem to matter how many times I say things – if it isn’t what you want to hear you just ignore it.

------------

I’ve done it, but you don’t wish to accept what I’m saying or are able to address the points raised so you are ignoring it.

Saying that DGU’s do not point to a healthy society DOES NOT answer the question no matter how many times you say it does.

If you go back and look at the posts you’d find the sections on DGU’s covered many things that you have pointedly refuse to discuss and that is the problem, if it isn’t what you want to hear you just ignore it.

----------

It’s still there, clearly posted by me, I’ve even told people where it is.

Ok well we can clear this up real quick and once and for all. In your original proposals did you intentionally or not, include a complete gun ban? A simple yes or no answer is all that is needed here.

What are you getting at? I put forward some proposals that I clearly and publically dropped. Why are you dragging them up again – oh I see – more point scoring…

You want to try and paint me as a closet gun banner – I repeat – I’m not calling for a complete gun ban.

__________________


I have answered, but it is an answer you do not wish to accept or are able to address so you are ignoring it.

Again WHERE IS THIS ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION?

Just pick somewhere from about six months ago and read on, anyone looking will find them repeated over and over – the problem is that it doesn’t seem to matter how many times I say things – if it isn’t what you want to hear you just ignore it.

Shouting will not help – reading what’s posted and not ignoring it might.

---------

We have been through this before on a number of occasions it’s and apple and orange argument, it doesn’t actually go anywhere.

Yes yes we all know guns are the only thing you should give credence to for “maybe” “possibility” “could” etc. Your argument has no foundation.

See this is your problem you don’t want to examine the issues and discuss what arises in a serious, honest and rational way – you just want to score points in a rather dumb effort to ‘win’. Which I’d like to point out is doomed to failure, for the very reason that you will not discuss the issues in a serious, honest and rational way.

---------

It is your opinion that they would be ineffective and useless but what you base that opinion on is only an interpretation of what could or could not happen.

I base it on Historical precedence. What makes you think things will be magically different now?

But as shown many times the statistics that you interpret to fit your viewpoint can be seen differently and in a way that questions that viewpoint.

The problem is that you refuse to address these problems preferring just to repeat the statements that the criticisms show may very well be seriously flawed.

Until you stop this silly point scoring and actually begin to discuss the issues in a serious, honest and rational way – those statements will remain flawed.

------

But your answer to the question of how to deal with crime is to turn to the gun.

How many times have I said that is only ONE way to combat crime and not necessarily the best way. You want to pretend it is in no way effective when the facts stare you in the face.

The problem is that you say one thing then express another. I’ve noted and given examples of your seeming contradictions on some subjects and how you seem to change your view as it suits you.

But the problem is that you say that to you guns are only “ONE way “ but you haven’t actually given us any alternatives (beside being good to each other and teaching ‘our’ kids right from wrong, which is nice but a bit wishy washy).

I’ve made no secret that I believe that an attitude of threat, intimidation and suppression (which includes guns) is not dealing with the problems of society it is just trying to hold down the symptoms.

---------

If it isn’t what you believe is true it must be wrong.

Then show me COUNTERING data.

Again rather than shouting why not try reading what’s posted and not ignoring it?


**

 

This isn’t refuting what I’ve said; in fact you seem to be accepting it only claiming I don’t abide by it. But you don’t seem able to back that statement up. I’ve made it very clear after on many occasions that the figures I’ve presented need to take into account the possible variables involved.

Lmfao OMFG I have challenged you time after time to disprove or show countering data on studies of the effects in which it only compared ONE COUNTRY.

You really don’t listen do you?

As shown on a number of occasions the statistics that you interpret to fit your viewpoint can be seen differently and in a way that questions that viewpoint.

We have been through this at length and there are a number of criticisms and counter arguments outstanding against your views that need addressing.

----------

Then there are other factors like population density, social mix proximity, unemployment rates, demographics and so on and so on.

Do you not think 45% is a large number of burglaries to be attempted or perpetrated while the house is occupied? If this is true and other places the percentages are much less what explanation can you come up with? You cannot so you only try to confuse and avoid the question.

Are the percentages low elsewhere, have you any data that can be examined?

But I didn’t avoid the question I looked at it and analysed it, and came to some tentative conclusions.

---------

I mean just look at the difference between the Survey estimated amount of burglaries for 2006 (726,000) and the official police records (292,285)

It has always been that way. Do you think every burglary is reported to police? Or has a report filled out and recorded? You are quibbling over nothing weather the number is 726,000 or 292,285, 45% is 45%.

I was pointing out the variables involved that need to be taken into account when looking at these figures.

This was just one of a number I mentioned this was to show the difference between extrapolations and hard figures. If these were serious burglaries why were they not reported?

----------

As I said if there is no actual definition it seems difficult to work out how many took place and how any comparisons can be made.

OMFG it is defined by the person making the study thus giving the same definition to both sets of numbers. Again you are quibbling over nothing so you can avoid answering the question.

I think you will see this is incorrect - See below
__________________

1283

The words in blue are my own throwing back at me, the problem is that the context is completely different.

Wow you remembered that? Same context.

I gave my reasons for believing the context was different – can you?

------------

You don’t seem to have made any attempt to see if it is true or not.

What lmfao???? It was I that supplied you the link to the HO report. If I had made no attempt that would not have happened would it?
I’m so hurt I really am you lied about me. Are you now going to apologize? Boo hoo

But the contended figures are the US ones and the Netherlands data is unsubstantiated and thirty years old, the British figures seem to be over ten years out of date and the US ones even older.

See below.

-----------

Well it is likely they might get a reply like this – Oh yeh and the thousands of websites posting this are just wrong it’s all made up and you the great disputer have shown it to be false when no one else on the planet could.

Haha I said I was looking for verification, I proved I was looking for verification. I am still searching for information. What have you done except wine and cry and dismiss it offhand?

OH dear Pitt you sound like you’re loosing it.

Where have I whined, cried or dismissed out of hand?

What I’m saying is that if this was a well verified figure it should have been easy to find as it is even with the source of them the actual figures are not.

See below

**

But at the moment there is no “TOTAL US rate” there is a figure that for all we know could have been picked out of the air, completely made up.

And if it is not picked out of the air, completely made up then what balbus? When I quote verified and undisputable figures they are irrelevant yet now it becomes relevant.

But this is the problem – because you believe them these are verified and undisputable figures, but in relation to the US figures presented they have not been verified and you have already said you don’t know if they are true.

As it is…

See below.

----

Again what has all of this have to do with the original statement? You can apply the same conversions and manipulations to the US figures and come up with the same reductions. It would still point to the fact that there are more in the UK than the US.

More than in the US?

What US figures are you talking about?

-----------------

Again this seem to be a big problem with you, if it suits your argument even unverified and possibly untrue things become in you mind complete and unquestionable FACT.

Again it was I that was looking for verification you were the one that did nothing and could not be bothered to search for verifications.

In what way have I not being bothering to search for verifications, and how do you know?

Anyway see below..


**

 

And as I go on to say - And the figures don’t seem correct if you actually look at the data from 1998 and burglaries in England and Wales have dropped since then.

What has the total number of burglaries have to do with the PERCENTAGES that occur when someone is home? Again you are just confusing and avoiding the topic.

You mean the percentage rates – but read your cut and past – it talks of increases in overall numbers based on the percentage – my point is that that number would be very wrong if more modern records were used.

WRONG it says the PERCENTAGE has increased.

Your research methods really suck – your cut and paste (as well as the original) reads “there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year”

A overall number increase, extrapolated from the percentages

Not only do you not read my post it seems you don’t even read your own?

---------

And I’m not saying it is true or false but just that it doesn’t seem to be backed up with anything that can be verified or examined.

And I am the one working to verify the figures. The question put to you was what else could cause such a large discrepancy IF it turns out to be true. And so far it does indeed looking more and more to be true.

You may or may not be trying to verify the figures but that doesn’t make them true.

Your research methods really, really suck – an unverified figure is not true until discovered otherwise it is suspect until discovered otherwise.

I mean why do you think it looks “more and more to be true”?

Anyway see below.

**


**

So you have shown evidence where the criminals turned in illegal guns in droves when the UK outlawed them?

No I haven’t.

You have shown evidence that the UK government and police estimates of over 3 million illegal guns in the UK years ago and are increasing in numbers is incorrect?

What, I’m not sure what you are talking about what ‘evidence’ have I shown?

In fact here is what I said when you made the claim – “Now you claim that the Home Office calculated there are some 3,000,000 illegal guns in the UK but I cannot find this claim reproduced anywhere could you please point to it (I mean it would be vastly more than the amount of legal guns)? As far as I can tell the Home Office finds it hard to put a figure on it but believes it is very low, basing that on police recovery numbers.”

I don’t think you answered me

---------

Changes in laws bring about changes, I haven’t claimed differently.

Changes in the law, changes who is law abiding?

And so? If laws change, they change.

----------

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you haven’t actually shown it to be true, in fact you seemed to have ignored evidence to the contrary.

So crime and violence went down in the UK after the ban? Go even further did “gun” crime and “gun” violence go down in the UK after the ban? Or do you mean you just “feel” better since the gun ban?

Again what are you on about?

“since peaking in 1995 BCS [British crime survey] crime has fallen 42%...domestic burglary and vehicle theft falling by over a half (59% and 61% respectively) and violent crime falling 41 per cent..”
Crime in England and Wales 2006/7

------------

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you haven’t actually shown it to be true, in fact you seemed to have ignored evidence to the contrary.

There are fewer guns in the UK since 1997 yet there has NOT been a reduction in the number if instances of gun involved crime now has there?

According to the Crime in England and Wales 2006-07 gun crime has fallen by 13% since 2005-06

-----------

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you haven’t actually shown it to be true, in fact you seemed to have ignored evidence to the contrary.

I have shown you. Has murder and crime declined since the 1997 gun ban in the UK?

According to the British Crime Survey violent crime has fallen by 41% since 1995.

------------

I’ve answered this you just refuse to address what I’ve said.

Again where the fuck have you answered this? Just saying it does not point to a healthy society does NOT answer the question now does it?

You’ve said that DGU’s or both a bad thing and a good thing – that they are not a good sign and a good sign, you want less but seem to promote policies that would increase there number.

You want me to say if they are a good thing or not and you don’t seem to be able to answer the question yourself.

We’ve been through all this if you were not just interested in scoring points then we could have a normal, honest discussion.

--------

What is being claimed that the number of shooting incidents would have been higher or lower without the hand gun ban?
What is proved?

It proves the criminals did not turn in their guns. They continue to have them, get them, and use them.

That doesn’t answer the question do you know for sure that the gun related murder rate would have been lower, higher or the same without the gun ban?

-----------

But the problem is the interpretation then put on the supposed ‘facts’, we have been through that.

You are the one claiming less guns = less crime. This simple fact would seem to put a kink into your view that’s why you wish to ignore it.

Ignore what, I’ve not ignored it, do you remember the thing with Connecticut?

[Pitt]..the New England region has the lowest homicide rate in the US. This region consist of:Connecticut..

[Balbus] “As far as I can tell there were 147 gun related death in Connecticut in 2002

Population of Connecticut is 3. 5 million

The number of gun related deaths for the whole UK in 2002 was 81

Population of the UK 60 million”

**

 

I’ve said many times I bow to your superior knowledge on guns, what can I say.

You can be reasonable when pointed out that you are just repeating mantra heralded by the anti-gun without knowledge of what it really means. After wouldn’t the honest thing be to have said well I didn’t know that and I understand why it is inaccurate and does not apply with the context of the proposal. Wouldn’t an honorable person at least know what they are talking about before proposing a “ban”?

So you know different guns, ok fine and so what?

I mean it doesn’t seem to have made you more able to defend your ideas, the problem at the moment is that you just refuse to enter into anything like honest debate.

----------

Fuck it Pitt whatever answer I give, you’ve just going to ignore it since it isn’t the one you want – what is the point of this – your view is that because guns ‘stopped’ 60,000 crimes, guns are a good thing – I think that it would be better to not concentrate on guns but on other means of tackling crime.

No my view is that guns DID stop a number of crimes. Your view is this is bad even to the expense of having the crime taken place instead of being stopped. To you its better to have 60,000 less DGU’s and 60,000 more crimes than it is to have 1 DGU.

WOW, skid marks on the road, you’ve lost all traction with reality.

Nowhere ever have I said that it would be better to have 60,000 more crimes.

I’ve said that it doesn’t seem to me like a good idea to be promoting policies such as wider gun ownership as a means of tackling crime when that only seems to be about suppressing crime not dealing with it’s causes.

---------

What do you mean by “intended outcome of the ban/restriction”?

OMFG so all these bans/restrictions were baseless? They had no intended outcome? No intended impact on society?

The problem is that I’m unsure what you want me to say? I mean we have been through this before and you keep repeating this and even when I give an answer you ignore it and just repeat the statement.

--------------

But that is unknown because the supposed US figure you are talking about could have just been made up (see above).

Haha ok well lets just wait and see shall we?

Ha ha OK

------------

Well again you have ignored me when I’ve repeatedly and clearly told you that I do not support many of the policies in relation to crime that have been implemented by successive British governments.

What the fuck does your “support” of crime policies have to do with it?

Again we have gone through this at length before – ok again – I think that many of the policies being followed by some political party’s are likely to increase certain violent crimes e.g. those associated with the drugs trade.

We have gone into this, I really wish you’d pay attention to what’s said.


---------

And also the question doesn’t make sense because it is unknown what would have been the outcome without the ban.

So instead of thinking about it and looking at the figures you will again IGNORE it.

You can look at the figures but that will not tell you what didn’t happen, only what did.

----------------

So guns don’t seem to be working as a deterrent and even with them, the figures are not that different.

This statement is utter BS to accept this you must assume that the US without guns would still have the same crime rates? Can you see this alternate reality?

You didn’t even give a quarter of a percent of thought to this did you?

It means if guns work as a deterrent the crime figures should be a lot lower in the US and they are not.

------------

7. And the most important how do you intend to get the criminals to comply with gun laws?

What?

Well if your intent is to keep guns from those who should not have then (I assume you mean criminals and not law abiding people) How will you get them to comply?

Again I’m just overwhelmed by your capacity to ignore anything said that doesn’t suit you.


**

 

But the problem was these ‘concerns’ were not really overwhelming reasons why not to try mandatory gun safes, it was nit picking. If you really want me to show how weak they are I’m happy to do so.

By all means.

OK

**

Pitfall #1 Increased cost just to be able to own a firearm.

Yes – and what? My intention is to try and limit the number of guns ending up in the hands of criminals.

Well why not just include a safe with the purchase of every gun? This is really the least of my concerns on this. Again I suggest reading a little on the Saturday night special laws and the reasons behind enacting it.

So this is the least of your concerns so you’re just going to shrug, so basically it’s not an overwhelming reason for being against.

-----------

Pitfall #2 what constitutes an “approved” safe

Could it be one that is approved! You know one that complies to a certain standard.

Who sets the standards and approves them? Perhaps the BATFE?

Is it overwhelmingly important who sets the standard?

**

Pitfall #3 Not only do you have to buy a safe you will have to buy multiple safes since he would change the criteria over time.

Over time – that means not every day or week or month it means over years and only if it’s needed.

If its good enough now what will change to cause everyone to have to purchase another one. This is just another BS scheme to increase cost and hassle.

But they might not, it depends on the results, it just a way of keeping the options open and anyway I’m trying to stop criminals easily getting their hands on guns, minor hassle doesn’t seem that overwhelming a reason for being against.

**

Pitfall #4 If you are away from home an d your house is burglarized what keeps the criminal from taking the lockbox with him and opening later to retrieve the weapon

Of course I’ve seen the light, halleluiah, I mean what is the point in having any safes what so ever, in fact what is the point of locking anything up – I mean if I lock my bike to a bicycle stand a thief could always take the stand along with the bike and take the lock off later, so really there is little point locking the bike up at all, it would be just as safe if I didn’t.

I’m sure I’ve told you how silly that is before haven’t I?

So you think its appropriate to have your government tall you that if you do not have a bicycle lock you cannot own a bicycle? Oh and by the way we might tell you next year you will have to have a different kind of lock.

The point is that all a lock is to keep an honest man out. This also goes back to the point of what constitutes an “approved” safe. Instead of making sill statements why not address the real point?

What real point – that you think that leaving a gun just hanging around is as safe as locking them up in a safe?

Again this doesn’t seem like a overwhelming reason for being against.

---------

Pitfall #5 Enforcement, how do you enforce this? Require proof of ownership when purchasing a gun? This doesn’t mean people will use it.

Think about it - If a person looses or has their gun stolen, they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun. (If its shown they did not show due diligence for securing their weapon)

Every gun would be registered, an unregistered gun would be an illegal gun, every X amount of time a gun owner would be asked to take his gun(s) along to an office (or peace officer) to prove they still held them.

If a gun has been stolen or lost and not reported it would result in an even heavier fine, communal service order or even a prison sentence if compliance can be proved.

If you don’t have a safe and the gun is stolen that is (1) not having a safe (2) not showing due diligence in securing the weapon. That could mean two heavy fines and being banned from ever owning a gun again (and possible a 10 year sentence for holding what would have been an illegal weapon).

So now you have gone further and made a national gun registry which like I state below is a whole different can of worms. Again I have told you in the past you should study the examples of these throughout history. The latest being the Canadian Registry.

You don’t state anything below about it besides saying – “there shouldn’t be a national registration”

-------------

Pitfall #6 How do you insure that someone don’t buy a safe, buy a gun then sell the safe? By random surprise inspections?

See above

Yes see above and below comments on national gun registry.

You mean your opinion that - there shouldn’t be a national registration?

--------

Pitfall #7 Money spent enforcing this through random inspections would be better spent on other programs designed to prevent crime rather than searching law abiding people’s houses for safes

See above

So you are saying since the individual (or elderly lady) must find a police officer or go to the police station there is no cost involved in creating a national registration database and nationwide network and no additional personnel to handle the people coming in every day to show they are “law abiding” people?

Why elderly lady?

To me it seems worth it, to try and cut down on crime, you think differently?

-----------

Pitfall #8 wouldn’t random searches be a violation of “illegal search and seizure laws?)

See above

That would be fine except it really does not address everything so the question still stands.

Why? I’m not contemplating random searches so why hasn’t this been addressed?

**

 

What posted reference – the problem is that there seem to be differing views as to what constitutes a ‘hot burglary’ I’ve explained this and given examples.

Are you claiming there are differing views and definitions within the same study? What a load of BS.

**

This makes me very worried about your level of research.

Something struck me straight away about the bit you quoted.

Go look at the brackets.

All the brackets in the piece are of the curved type ‘( __)’

All except the bit around the definition of a ‘hot burglary’ to quote in full – ["hot burglaries" are defined as burglaries occuring while the homeowner victim is present],

Square brackets ‘[ __ ]’

This usually demotes an addition or editors note in other words a doctoring of the original.

And this seem to be the case here – the original seems to have read -

Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year
An example here - http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

The doctored one -

Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations ["hot burglaries" are defined as burglaries occuring while the homeowner victim is present], there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year
An example here - http://womanofthelaw.blogspot.com/2004/07/do-it-do-it.html
(my red)


It seems the definition is not in the original – it was added later -

(Also occurring is spelt wrong)

**

 

OK the assertions come from the book Targeting Guns by Gary Kleck page 182-3

This is very old research which makes it difficult to verify but also to interpret if it has any significance to 2007

The hypothesis is that gun ownership deters burglars because they fear being shot so it is postulated that burglars are much more likely to enter an occupied house in countries with higher gun ownership.

The other countries mentioned are Canada, Netherlands and Britain.

The Canada numbers are based on a 1978 report by Waller and Okihiro on Toronto that has been criticised for concentrating on high risk areas – there results given are of 44% for at home burglaries but other surveys taking in wider areas have given lower figure of around 10%.

The figures for the Netherlands is obscurer a 1977 survey is mentioned with figures of 48% but I’ve been unable to find this let alone verify or check it.

The British figures come from the British Crime Survey from at the latest 1992 which cites 43%.

The figure of 12.7% given for the US is supposedly based on the NCVS [national crime victimization survey] from 1985. But for the life of me I don’t know how they were got at, I couldn’t find the 1985 report but I’ve looked at a few other years and so far nothing comes close.

Anyway I’ll keep on looking, but anyway I think the age of the data makes it difficult to use in a current argument, let alone to use it as current ‘fact’.

**

However

Burglary with Entry – 1989 - 92
Netherlands 2.2%
England 2.5%
Canada 3.2%
USA 3.5%
http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/04_industr_countries.pdf

and a more resent survey said –
“proportion of households who had a completed or attempted burglary was highest in England and Wales (6%) Canada, the Netherlands and the USA (all 5%)

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/summary162.PDF
1996

The thing is that such small differences (1 or 2%) are not that very significant it means they are basically the same.

If guns were a significant deterrent wouldn’t burglary of all types be much lower in countries with higher levels of gun ownership e.g. Canada and the US than in places with low gun ownership e.g. Britain and the Netherlands?

However, again this is old data and I’ll keep on looking.


**

 

You want to try and paint me as a closet gun banner – I repeat – I’m not calling for a complete gun ban.

Rotflmfao you cannot even admit to it given the fact I give you the benefit of the doubt and said you did it inadvertently.

I didn’t do it inadvertently, I suggested a few ideas to try and cut down on the number of guns in circulation within the US. I have never claimed differently, you objected to some and thought others good, so I dropped the ones you objected.

---------

Shouting will not help – reading what’s posted and not ignoring it might.

Again rotflmfao
Answer the fucking question would solve all. You cannot show where you answered so you just post more spin and nonsense.

I’ve repeated my answers many times you just don’t accept them because they are not the answers you want.

----------

See this is your problem you don’t want to examine the issues and discuss what arises in a serious, honest and rational way – you just want to score points in a rather dumb effort to ‘win’. Which I’d like to point out is doomed to failure, for the very reason that you will not discuss the issues in a serious, honest and rational way.

You are the one given so much credence to “maybe” “possibility” “could” etc.and ignore the facts and I’m the one being dishonest? Lol you are a real class act.

Again you take an interpretation and call it fact, but it isn’t fact it is just an opinion that can be challenged and criticised, the problem is that you will not address the challenges and criticisms, you just repeat the interpretation as fact.

---------

But as shown many times the statistics that you interpret to fit your viewpoint can be seen differently and in a way that questions that viewpoint.

And just where have these “alternate viewpoints” been seriously studied? Again you can say anything but without examinations and studies its nothing but conjecture.

But that is the point the ideas you have presented or cited are only conjecture too, the problem is that you will not address the challenges and criticisms to your viewpoint but instead repeat the conjecture as if it was unchallengeable fact.

---------

The problem is that you refuse to address these problems preferring just to repeat the statements that the criticisms show may very well be seriously flawed.

The problem is you do not show any serious flaw except to say “it could be interpreted differently” The moon could be made of Swiss cheese that don’t mean all the research and travel there should be discounted.

But I’ve shown how it could be interpreted differently but you refuse address the alternatives to your view.

----------

The problem is that you say one thing then express another. I’ve noted and given examples of your seeming contradictions on some subjects and how you seem to change your view as it suits you.
But the problem is that you say that to you guns are only “ONE way “ but you haven’t actually given us any alternatives (beside being good to each other and teaching ‘our’ kids right from wrong, which is nice but a bit wishy washy).

What?? How is saying its “one” way being contradictory? Look at the evidence. Look at your own statements
but you haven’t actually given us any alternatives
Where you know this is a falsehood. I have made suggestions and even described in social programs I am personally involved in. What exactly is the flaw in the belief you should actually raise your kids and teach them right from wrong?

I’ve given many examples of your contradictions.

I’ve explained at length why your social policies are simplistic.

I’ve also shown you why supporting certain ‘social programs’ is very different than actually thinking of alternatives.

I’ve given long explanations of what I’d do, if you honestly think I haven’t actually given any alternatives ideas then you haven’t read my posts.

Again what is the point of me saying anything if you just ignore it?

**

Anyone can say something is only ‘one way’ of doing something, but if they refuse to actually explain the other ways even when asked the statement is meaningless. It just means there maybe other ways but they can’t think of any and they don’t want to reveal that they can only thing of one way.

You have made suggestions – you have suggested that people help each other and be nice to each other and that ‘we’ should teach ‘our’ kids to know right from wrong.

This is worthy but simplistic as pointed out many religious leaders have said the same thing and unless you think you have more clout than Christ then it is not a realistic policy for change, it is just a prayer.

As to the social supporting social programmes that is also worthy and should be done but many such programmes only tackle the symptoms or are done out of guilt or political ideology that means little thought is actually given to if they are realistic alternatives.

For example you said you supported D.A.R.E - Drug Abuse Resistance Education – a ‘just say no’ drugs based program that has been heavily criticized for being based more on a moralistic political ideology than effectiveness.

-----------

Again rather than shouting why not try reading what’s posted and not ignoring it?

ROTFLMFAO again there has been no countering data posted.

No, you just don’t like alternative interpretation of the data to your own so you ignore it rather than deal with it.

**

As shown on a number of occasions the statistics that you interpret to fit your viewpoint can be seen differently and in a way that questions that viewpoint.

Lol So once again how does the statistics showing that “GUN crime and GUN murder” has increased in the UK since the 1997 gun ban every year except for one. Be interpreted differently? Gun murder is gun murder you said so yourself there is no other interpretation, a guy is dead and has been killed by a gun not many other factors to even look at right?

We have been through this but you ignored what was presented many times – what is the point of me repeating things you have already ignored?

--------

But I didn’t avoid the question I looked at it and analysed it, and came to some tentative conclusions.

Again I am still researching to find it. Let’s just make it a hypothetical question then. If the research that was performed by world respected academics hold up and are true what else could explain the large difference in burglaries of occupied homes?

Will you now answer? I highly doubt it.

First up – academics are just normal people, with all the foibles the rest of humanity have and many have pet theories and ideas that they try to promote.

Second – Things change as is clear now a lot of this data is old, in some cases thirty years old.

Third – as I’ve tried to make clear statistical evidence is open to interpretation and an opinion based on it is very seldom seen as incontestable truth.

Fourth – you would need to take account of the variables and context when making comparisons which don’t seem to have been taken into account in the Kleck book.

------------

I was pointing out the variables involved that need to be taken into account when looking at these figures.

Again 45% is 45% what does the number of total burglaries have to do with it?

But as pointed out the percentages were being used to calculate numerical figures and so the numbers the percentages were based on had a very great importance to the outcome of the calculation.

But I’ve already explained that…

---------

I think you will see this is incorrect - See below

So you are saying respected academics give different definitions to the same term in the same report?

You didn’t look below before trying to score some silly point…again…

No in fact – Kleck doesn’t seem to mention ‘hot burglaries’ at all, that only seems to appear in the summery written for guncite.

---------

But the contended figures are the US ones and the Netherlands data is unsubstantiated and thirty years old, the British figures seem to be over ten years out of date and the US ones even older.

OMFG you will spin anything to get out of having to seriously rethink your positions.

What am I spinning? As far as I can tell what I said is correct.

--------

What I’m saying is that if this was a well verified figure it should have been easy to find as it is even with the source of them the actual figures are not.

And if its hot verifiable do you not think the anti-gun crowd would be shouting all over the internet that it was inaccurate? They are based on govt reports trying to find the proper ones with the original data is not an easy task.

So let me get this straight to you something that hasn’t been verified is true until proven otherwise?

Do you remember the thing about - Gun owners are 21% more likely to be convicted on child abuse charges than those that don’t own guns.

As I’ve shown several times the statistics in government reports are open to interpretation.

--------

but in relation to the US figures presented they have not been verified and you have already said you don’t know if they are true.

I believe they are true because there is no data even from the anti-gun crowd showing it to be inaccurate. Just because I have not found the originating report does not put the figures in doubt nor have you presented anything to put them in doubt.

So to you anything is true unless proved to be inaccurate (by someone else)

Gun owners are 21% more likely to be convicted on child abuse charges than those that don’t own guns.

Imagine someone saying I don’t know if this is true but it probably is because I don’t know of anything that disproves it.

---------

What US figures are you talking about?

Oh my fucking god. What fucking figures were we discussing? You are pathetic and will try anything to keep from having to rethink yourself.

The figure that have not being verified, that are at least 22 years old and might be an interpretation of some statistics that might be viewed differently.

The ones you seem to be accepting without question because they seem to back up something you want backed up?

------------

In what way have I not being bothering to search for verifications, and how do you know?

Are you saying you have looked? I believe you have not looked because if its true and the original report posted for all to see you will no longer have an excuse to not answer the question.

Again you didn’t read the posts before coming out with a silly bit of useless and baseless bit of point scoring…again…

As to an ‘original’ report, no original report has been posted, we have had a doctored summery of a couple of pages from a book written by a pro-gun advocate, this is just typ…..

Fuck it what’s the point, you’re not listening anyway…

**