The Cellar - View Single Post

Xugumad · 10-22-2002, 12:35 PM

From that article:

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991.

The British gun ban was passed 4-5 years ago.

Violent crime was 'soaring' before people's guns were taken away.'

The article is staggering in its desire to link private gun ownership and rising crime, in the process utterly disregarding cultural factors. It's strange how the article admits that general gun ownership was severely restricted by the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, but only points out that violent crime increased sharply in the 1990s. It would invalidate much of the author's argument is cultural reasons, rather than reduced private gun ownership, were to blame.

Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

Yes, if it's only murder and rape the US is ahead in, it should be OK.

As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.
The link to gun ownership being implied, and non-obvious. But as long as it's only 3.5 times, it's still OK.

The example of Britain teaches nothing, especially seeing how emotionally manipulative that article was. The examples of robbers being shot, killed, etc. in the middle of the article were injustice, rather than examples of why guns are good.

Not that the magazine itself would be biased, of course. The banner ad currently is for "The leading libertarian and conservative titles."

Unsurpringly, the author is a Professor at a Business College. With the amount of Post Hoc fallacies committed in the article, I'd find it surprising if he wasn't laughed out of any serious academic convention. The MIT link only suggests that he provides data for a research program.

Here's another example of a pro-gun Post Hoc fallacy:

"The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically. Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%."
("The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership", The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000.)

I just wonder if Malcolm is part of the DHorowitz' oft-invoked liberal academic mafia that's making life so difficult for conservatives... :-)

The article is mostly emotional manipulation with no proof of the links drawn between the statistics and the results. The meat of the article is blatant in its failure to demonstrate how widely available gun ownership would have prevented most crimes, and instead focuses on how 'unjustly' British law treats those who seek to protect themselves.

Naturally, it focuses on Britain, which is an exception to the whole situation, based on Europe. In most other European countries, gun ownership has never been an issue, and crime mirrors (to a lesser, less dramatic extent) the British experience.

But I suspect the author wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of good argument. He has a book to sell, after all.

Fine distractionary tactic, too. Instead of the thread's title of 'how to get the sniper', where general firearm ownership would have done very little, the subject is being diverted to matters of principle. Very well and good, but how exactly are more liberal gun laws in the US vs. Britain preventing a criminal or insane individual from using his probably legal firearm to kill a large number of people?

Surely at this point, concerned citizens ought to be swarming all over that sniper, knee-capping him with their nifty new Glocks. What? People are hiding in their houses, schools are being shut down, and real terror is being struck into their hearts? Why? With your trusty pistol at your side, nothing can happen to you? At this point, pro-gun advocates are claiming that if everybody was armed, they wouldn't be afraid. Which is patent nonsense: your sidearm isn't going to stop a sniper's bullet, and a murderer who is willing to kill indiscriminately and in cold blood isn't going to be stopped by the knowledge that his victim is armed.

The illusion of safety that firearms provide is all good and nice, right until the moment when somebody shatters is. Which is exactly what the sniper is doing. Period.

X.

Links: http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/posthocf.html

10-22-2002, 12:35 PM	#94
Xugumad Punisher of Good Deeds Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 183	From that article: Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. The British gun ban was passed 4-5 years ago. Violent crime was 'soaring' before people's guns were taken away.' The article is staggering in its desire to link private gun ownership and rising crime, in the process utterly disregarding cultural factors. It's strange how the article admits that general gun ownership was severely restricted by the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, but only points out that violent crime increased sharply in the 1990s. It would invalidate much of the author's argument is cultural reasons, rather than reduced private gun ownership, were to blame. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes." Yes, if it's only murder and rape the US is ahead in, it should be OK. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times. The link to gun ownership being implied, and non-obvious. But as long as it's only 3.5 times, it's still OK. The example of Britain teaches nothing, especially seeing how emotionally manipulative that article was. The examples of robbers being shot, killed, etc. in the middle of the article were injustice, rather than examples of why guns are good. Not that the magazine itself would be biased, of course. The banner ad currently is for "The leading libertarian and conservative titles." Unsurpringly, the author is a Professor at a Business College. With the amount of Post Hoc fallacies committed in the article, I'd find it surprising if he wasn't laughed out of any serious academic convention. The MIT link only suggests that he provides data for a research program. Here's another example of a pro-gun Post Hoc fallacy: "The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically. Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%." ("The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership", The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000.) I just wonder if Malcolm is part of the DHorowitz' oft-invoked liberal academic mafia that's making life so difficult for conservatives... :-) The article is mostly emotional manipulation with no proof of the links drawn between the statistics and the results. The meat of the article is blatant in its failure to demonstrate how widely available gun ownership would have prevented most crimes, and instead focuses on how 'unjustly' British law treats those who seek to protect themselves. Naturally, it focuses on Britain, which is an exception to the whole situation, based on Europe. In most other European countries, gun ownership has never been an issue, and crime mirrors (to a lesser, less dramatic extent) the British experience. But I suspect the author wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of good argument. He has a book to sell, after all. Fine distractionary tactic, too. Instead of the thread's title of 'how to get the sniper', where general firearm ownership would have done very little, the subject is being diverted to matters of principle. Very well and good, but how exactly are more liberal gun laws in the US vs. Britain preventing a criminal or insane individual from using his probably legal firearm to kill a large number of people? Surely at this point, concerned citizens ought to be swarming all over that sniper, knee-capping him with their nifty new Glocks. What? People are hiding in their houses, schools are being shut down, and real terror is being struck into their hearts? Why? With your trusty pistol at your side, nothing can happen to you? At this point, pro-gun advocates are claiming that if everybody was armed, they wouldn't be afraid. Which is patent nonsense: your sidearm isn't going to stop a sniper's bullet, and a murderer who is willing to kill indiscriminately and in cold blood isn't going to be stopped by the knowledge that his victim is armed. The illusion of safety that firearms provide is all good and nice, right until the moment when somebody shatters is. Which is exactly what the sniper is doing. Period. X. Links: http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/posthocf.html Last edited by Xugumad; 10-22-2002 at 12:58 PM.