Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha
The stats do not prove anything because it does not establish a causal relationship between the gun laws and crime. If I told you that the SEC increased securties fraud prosecutions in 2007 and the weather in 2008 was much nicer than in 2007, would you believe that securities fraud prosecutions improve weather conditions?
|
Well, your argument is apples and oranges in regards to the weather, but I do understand your point.
However, it's hard to completely ignore the direct relation here is it not?
Quote:
|
Since you have decided to label my arguments "smoke and mirrors," let me just say that most of the arguments I've seen around here sound like cheap talking points of the NRA (e.g., "gun control laws only hurt the innocent").
|
Is that supposed to devalue the argument? The NRA has one goal in mind (obviously), so to use some of their arguments (not saying anyone is) is not a bad thing. Point being, it's only the validity that matters.
Quote:
|
Finally, I don't think you really want to get into a comparison between the U.S. and the U.K. with regard to gun control laws. In the U.S., it is extremely easy to gain access to firearms. In the U.K., it is difficult to gain access to firearms. The U.S. gun crime stats make us look like a third world country in the midst of a civil war when compared with U.K. gun crime stats.
|
In the UK, it is only difficult to guns if you're law abiding, but yet they have more issues because of it.
I am unsure of your point with your last sentence, cause as someone just posted, the UK has MUCH worse stats than we do and they have much stricter gun laws. Their laws backfired on them. Their intent was good, sure, but the outcome was horrendous. So please explain further what you are meaning by your last sentence, cause I am not getting your intent.