Arming public reduces crime

I agree that the slippery slope argument should not be much of a factor under any Constitutional form of government since our Constitution would have to be changed for any slippery slope to occur.

 

I'm glad you've seen the light. There are also other reasons why the slippery slope does not apply to gun control. I think that it's high time anti-controllers lose this outdated and fallacious fear tactic. Surely there's more valid arguments to offer.

 

That's because we have a lot of black-on-black violence: the Bloods and Crips. Canadian gun-ownership rates are almost the same as ours, but their crime rate is much lower.

 

Blacks have a higher gun violence rate, that's true. However, it doesn't affect the overall statistics significantly.

The rate for whites and the overall rate for the US are only different by about a point.

Can't blame it on the blacks.

 

Criminal on criminal violence, not just gang on gang.

 

In 2010 El Paso, TX, which has more guns than people, had only three murders for the entire year.

It is the 19th largest city in the U.S. and has over 700K people.

 

Standard example of spurious conclusion from raw data. The subject deserves better!

 

What conclusion? I merely stated a fact.

 

Best & Worst States
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence releases an annual ranking of state’s gun laws, giving the highest scores to those states with the strongest gun control laws. The FBI annually ranks states according to their levels of criminal activity. Let’s do some comparisons. Crime rates are incidents per 100,000 people. DC and Puerto Rico are not rated by the Bradys but they have gun control that is much stricter than even California.

State // Brady rank // Murder rate // Violent Crime rate
FBI Worst Five States

DC // Strict // 24 // 1,346
PR // Strict // 22.5 // 264
LA // 2 // 11.8 // 620
NM // 4 // 8.7 // 619
TN // 8 // 7.3 // 668

FBI Best Five States
VT // 6 // 1.1 // 131
IA // 7 // 1.1 // 279
UT // 0 // 1.3 // 213
MN // 14 // 1.4 // 244
ND // 4 // 1.5 // 201

Brady Best Five States (Since they don’t list PR & DC I will use their best five.)
CA // 80 // 5.3 // 472
NJ // 72 // 3.7 // 312
MA // 65 // 2.6 // 467
CT // 58 // 3.0 // 297
HI // 50 // 1.7 // 274

Brady Worst Five States
AK & AZ tie at minus two points. Official rating is zero but they show two demerit points each.
AK // -2 // 3.1 // 633
AZ // -2 // 5.5 // 408
UT // 0 // 1.3 // 213
ID // 2 // 1.4 // 228
MT // 2 // 2.6 //254

Notice that I use the total murder rate. Some here use only the gun murder rate as they seem to believe that you aren't as dead if you are murdered by other means.

 

You've merely peddled the same ole spurious nonsense. You should know better!

 

What he is peddling is the fact that more gun control does not mean less crime, which The Brady Campaign is oblivious to.

 

Confusing facts with the abuse of spurious relationship isn't cunning. You fellows have been told that slice of obviousness several times so we can only assume that there is a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation.

 

Obviously there is something about the facts that I posted that give you indigestion. That's your problem, not mine. They are still facts.

 

You are deliberately trying to misrepresent via spurious conclusion. Again, you've been told about this multiple times now.

 

This thread has reached the 500 post limit it will now be closed You may start another thread to continue your debate.
Arming Public Reduces Crime Part 2.

 

It is a fact that more gun control does not mean less crime...period.

 

No, that is an unsupported opinion gleaned by ignoring the scientific process and replacing criminology with herded tabloidism

 

You need to pull your nose out of your liberal journals, and take note of crime statistics.

 

Avoiding spurious conclusions isn't a liberal concept. Even right wingers can achieve it! The problem is that you fellows have an ideology that is inconsistent with an objective study of the scientific evidence

 

I other words, you think we should ignore science in favor cherry-picked data and non-specific data.

George Bush would be proud.

 

We all know that more laws does not necessarily mean more compliance.

 

Nice dodging bit of irrelevance.

 

I'm dodging nothing.

 

You didn't achieve relevance. He was perhaps being kind

 

So NOW you are claiming that correlation does not equate to causation? Why wouldn't you admit that before when we were discussing other related issues. Hypocrite.