Violent crime

[Aram]

I think I'd rather live in a system where someone might go crazy than a system where Big Brother scrutinizes my every move.

[taks]

Can we agree that Denmark has a less degree of violence and crime commited with weapons than America?

 

and can we agree that the availability of weapons are somewhat lower here than in America?

 

While it's a somwhat "Erasmus argument" linking those two, imo they are undoubtly connected. Fewer weapons = fewer crimes with weapons.. (I'm not not saying it equals less crime!)

 

Ergo, fewer people die as a result of crime, if weapons are harder to get.

 

Also I know this wasn't your argument, but I believe Gorgon was hinting towards this.

c*u*m hoc, ergo proctor hoc. in other words "With this, therefore because of this," which is a fallacious argument.

 

totally nonsense, btw. completely different cultures so you are not even comparing apples to apples. most violent crimes in america are committed with illegal weapons anyway, which immediately rules out this nonsense as well. not all crimes involve otherwise illegal weapons, either. if your argument were true, btw, then DC should have less crime than the rest of the major US urban areas as well (since handguns are illegal). got news for you...

 

stating that the difference between rich and poor is the cause of crime is equally nonsense. most crime is committed within economic classes, i.e., poor on poor.

 

taks

 

edit: it did not like that word in the name of the fallacy... oh, and i'm waiting for the dimwit to show up and point out that this is not a logical fallacy. i'll reply immediately by noting that not only did i not say the word "logical," it is listed as an informal fallacy in nearly every text on the subject.

Edited June 10, 2008 by taks

[Rosbjerg]

so this is where I come in and say it's not a logical fallacy?

[Laozi]

There is an abundance of guns and an abundance of crazy people......hamster turning wheel......

[tripleRRR]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am far far more worried about some nutjob behind the wheel of a car than one who has a gun or a knife. ><

[Walsingham]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am far far more worried about some nutjob behind the wheel of a car than one who has a gun or a knife. ><

 

That's really my point ! As this Japanese chap proved, they can easily shift to cars if we somehow managed to remove all sharp objects from the world. We need to concentrate on the perpetrators, not the weapons... while still trying to keep nutrcases away from .50 cals.

[Aram]

I still don't understand how the .50 BMG became the poster child for gun control...they've been available for twenty years and not a single person has been murdered by one.

[Gorgon]

Because it's the biggest gun out there, why else.

[Aram]

So...illogical baseless paranoia then.

[Gorgon]

I think it's more that a ludicrously sized gun paints a better caricature of the 'enthusiast' who has enough firepower to overthrow a small African nation.

[Walsingham]

The .50 BMG is one of the few guns which actually makes sense of the notion that guns are for defending against the state. I am utterly confused as to what all these gun nuts are going to do with their dinky revolvers against the New World Order 1st Armoured Division.

[Gorgon]

Armed forces the world across tremble at the mere thought of a citizen militia

[Walsingham]

The militias should be far more concerned with tehir total lack of secure comms, and free transport. You need a test AND a license to own a car. It's a conspiracy I say!

[Aram]

The .50 BMG is one of the few guns which actually makes sense of the notion that guns are for defending against the state. I am utterly confused as to what all these gun nuts are going to do with their dinky revolvers against the New World Order 1st Armoured Division.

 

A .50 BMG is still just a big rifle. It's as useless against armor as any other small arm. Fighting a modern military is frankly hopeless even if there are no restrictions on arms whatsoever. A "New World Order" could only really be fought with a combination of passive resistance, guerrilla skirmishes, and, frankly, terrorism--incidentally the same things that are going to keep us from ever accomplishing anything in Iraq.

[Gorgon]

A terrorist campaign can only succeed in making the current power structure look ineffective and weak. It's a PR game basically. The theory then suggests that the population are so repulsed by draconian counter terrorism measures that they

eventually side with the terrorists against the goverment.

 

This has never actually happened. The problem here is that you can get used to anything, even terror bombs. A guerrilla campaign on the other hand can win simply by outlasting and surviving until all the pieces fall into place and it is in a position to capitalize. Castro fought the greater part of his campaign with a few hundred men.

[Walsingham]

A terrorist campaign can only succeed in making the current power structure look ineffective and weak. It's a PR game basically. The theory then suggests that the population are so repulsed by draconian counter terrorism measures that they

eventually side with the terrorists against the goverment.

 

This has never actually happened. The problem here is that you can get used to anything, even terror bombs. A guerrilla campaign on the other hand can win simply by outlasting and surviving until all the pieces fall into place and it is in a position to capitalize. Castro fought the greater part of his campaign with a few hundred men.

 

I can't agree it's never happened. Look at the fighting in Palestine which lead to the British withdrawal of administration. But that was an extreme case in as much as the stakes were perceived as tiny, and it took place against a backdrop of weakness that had been caused by six years of total war with Germany and Japan. Long terror campaigns can threaten the groups as much as the goevrnment. Look at Northern Ireland, and (possibly) Iraq. In both cases the people have been smart enough to say "hang on, we're not very happy living generation after generation with total anarchy and violence". At that point they help the authorities, and the game, as they say, is more or less up.

[Gorgon]

That was in the middle of the British finding out the hard way that they weren't a colonial power anymore. Zionist were as much superstars or warrior poets as terrorists to the population, and apart from a few spectacular departures, such as the bombing of the King David hotel, they targeted military. Nevertheless they are typically quoted as an example of a successful terrorist campaign.

 

Not surprisingly the other success in that region is the PLO. They called attention to themselves with high profile attacks with world wide media attention. They didn't 'win' as much as stake their claim for statehood. Without action Arafat would have been unlikely to have spoken at the UN and travel around the world as a dignitary.

 

A really bad lesson for that region, that sometimes terror works.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

That was in the middle of the British finding out the hard way that they weren't a colonial power anymore. Zionist were as much superstars or warrior poets as terrorists to the population, and apart from a few spectacular departures, such as the bombing of the King David hotel, they targeted military. Nevertheless they are typically quoted as an example of a successful terrorist campaign.

 

I'm not one to paint the Zionists as bad guys, but the assertion that they didn't attack non-military targets isn't really borne out by the incident reports and autobiographies I've read. Both sides attacked civilian areas seen to belong to the 'opposition' in an effort to drive them out. Note what a tremendously good situation ensued after we 'pulled the troops out and let the locals sort it out'.

 

Anyway, back on topic. Iraq and much of teh middle east is a good example of what I'm talking about, in some ways. There's no realistic way to remove the weapons, so the only alternative is to work on the finger that pulls the trigger/presses the switch.

[Gorgon]

Don't misunderstand, I'm not talking about what they did to the Arab communities, but how they were perceived by their own. They didn't kill jews generally, bearing in mind that we are talking about a handful of major organizations and splinter groups with mixed priorities. As much as the IRA they believed themselves to be part of an irregular army.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Don't misunderstand, I'm not talking about what they did to the Arab communities, but how they were perceived by their own. They didn't kill jews generally, bearing in mind that we are talking about a handful of major organizations and splinter groups with mixed priorities. As much as the IRA they believed themselves to be part of an irregular army.

 

Ah, I see what you mean.