Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[steveo395]

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/Lon...ime-EW.xls.pdf

Guns were banned in 1997 and violent crime rates increased dramatically.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by steveo395

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/Lon...ime-EW.xls.pdf

Guns were banned in 1997 and violent crime rates increased dramatically.

I bought my first car 12 years ago and my aunt died the next week. The lesson being, your aunt will die if you buy a car.

Sorry to be a smart ass, but those stats don't prove anything.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

but those stats don't prove anything.

How do they not prove anything? I am all for hearing your take on this, cause it seems this argument is just about put to bed with these stats. Of course, it's hard to fully judge without a valid argument to the contrary...but so far your arguments to this have been smoke and mirrors at best. So please tell us why these stats don't prove anything.
(disclaimer, I am being 100% genuine, not sarcastic)

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

How do they not prove anything? I am all for hearing your take on this, cause it seems this argument is just about put to bed with these stats. Of course, it's hard to fully judge without a valid argument to the contrary...but so far your arguments to this have been smoke and mirrors at best. So please tell us why these stats don't prove anything.
(disclaimer, I am being 100% genuine, not sarcastic)

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?

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").

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.

[jsarno]

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?

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.

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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

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.

I am too lazy to look up gun crime stats in the U.K. v. the U.S., but I can say with 100% certainty that there are far more incidents involving guns in the U.S. than in the U.K. (both in terms of raw numbers and on a per capita basis).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I am too lazy to look up gun crime stats in the U.K. v. the U.S., but I can say with 100% certainty that there are far more incidents involving guns in the U.S. than in the U.K. (both in terms of raw numbers and on a per capita basis).

Well you would also need to look up the punishment that goes along with gun crimes. I'd bet that if we looked the countries with the tougher laws also have the lower crime rates so they go hand in hand.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I am too lazy to look up gun crime stats in the U.K. v. the U.S., but I can say with 100% certainty that there are far more incidents involving guns in the U.S. than in the U.K. (both in terms of raw numbers and on a per capita basis).

I guess you missed this...it was already posted by someone:
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/Lon...ime-EW.xls.pdf

I seriously doubt that the way Violent crimes went up, the gun crimes didn't. Of course that link is not gun crimes per se, but it's a fairly good stat to see what happened after the gun laws occured in the UK.