That is a 5 year old newspaper report…
There was another claim on Japan as well
Japan is very different, culturally, from us and the rest of the world. AFAIR, crimes rates among ethnic-Japanese citizens in the US are extremely low too.
Isn’t that just what a typical anti-gunner would say?
Isn’t this, “conformational bias, anecdotal evidence, strawman, false dichotomy, statistical denial, cherry picking data, etc, etc” just what the gun grabbers do?
Maybe you could be a little moe specific in where you think his reasoning fails.
I’m happy we both agree and to have helped you understand where general concepts can apply to particular situations.
Can’t tell if serious
You will of course be willing to provide that stat, from a reliable and non-biased, source, or course. Right? Right?
More than five years old. It’s not dated but it refers to Jack Straw as the Home Secretary and he only served in this role from 1997 to 2001. Not only is it not dated but the article provides no link or reference to the survey it claims to be quoting so there is no way of checking the figures or the methodology. Having said that **Stanislaus **has already explained one point: the Daily Mail goes from:
to
but as the UK definition of violent crime covers way more tha “assault or robbery”.
Basically this is the sort of scare story the Daily Mail specialises in - lose use of statistics used to bash the Labour governement of the time. Basic rule for non-Brits; do no use the Mail as a souce of factual information (except possibly if it is about celebs and there doings 
).
How about this: are burglaries defined the same in US as in other countries?
or this paper from 2011: http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdf
Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the US, while the opposite was true thirty years ago. We label this fact as the “reversal of misfortunes”
If you read it, they do control for how things are measured.
Don’t get me wrong - this is not my field - I have no real knowledge of whether overall crime rates, violent crime rates, or murder rates are higher or lower in the States compared to the UK. I was just cautioning against using a Daily Mail article from 2000 (?) to support your case. Also, burglary is not necessarily the same the world over. IANAL but don’t some jurisdictions split out day time breaking and entering and/or theft from commercial property and not classify it as burglary?
The paper by the Italian professors looks interesting but I do not have the background to judge its data, its methodology, or its conclusions. One thing that did catch my eye was Figure 3b that shows rates for violent crime in each of the European countries. A quick look at the chart shows that in Britain violent crime jumped from 5 per 1000 inhabitants to 20 per 1000 between the mid-90s and the mid-00s. Anarchy unleashed, no-one safe on the streets… But then reading the Note explains that the jump was the result of change to the very wide definition to that quoted by Stanislaus. It realy shows the problems of comparing across time never mind across countries.
As to the Wiki chart on burglaries, well again I would not rely on that to support your argument. Not only is it completely unsourced but it finishes 14 years ago.
:rolleyes:
Really? No retraction at all about making a claim in your OP that’s not supported by your own link?
Why would I make a retraction? I was very specific that Sam’s 1st amendment rights were protected by his 2nd. You agree with me I thought. Anyway, here’s my quote in question:
“My guess is that he understands, more than most, that his first amendment rights might have to be protected by his second. What say you Der Trihs?”
From what I can tell you have agreed with me on all important points. So what’s your problem?
And yes I noticed that Der Trihs failed to answer my question about general risk of firearm ownership vs. his and Sam’s risk in particular, and he never answered my question whether he has the courage to speak his mind against religion in real life or not. So my guess is “not.”
Serious. You don’t think the anti-gunners are guilty of any of said logical fallacies?
…he said, while using a huge logical fallacy, so well-timed that it had to be on purpose. Or not.
What do you mean by that?
He means ya done goofed.
You had just employed – in fact, you had just repeated – the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad hominem, specifically the form known as Tu quoque.
The RationalWiki page on Gun nuts is insightful and relevant here:
They ain’t makin’ it up about about those “false flag operation” theories, either. See this Pit thread. If you believe/proclaim that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, then you are a gun nut, and probably several other kinds of nut.
Yes,BrainGlutton, we know you don’t like guns. So to you anyone who who likes guns more than President Obama is a gun nut.
Nah, it’s just what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I read through Sam’s article with interest and I didn’t see anything that seemed fallacious. If any of you anti-gunners have any specific issue where you think he has then I’d like to see you be specific about it.
sigh Well, at least I don’t hear you saying the Sandy Hook massacre was staged.