Stickyreiss said:
Danny Ocean said:
1. 'Reported' meaning what?
2. Those figures are almost a decade out of date.
3. How are those figures when viewed in context with overall crime trends?
1-on record with the government
2-because thats when GB enacted a law banning almost all firearms, and the statistics show what gun related crime was before and after the ban
3-the govt. banned guns, gun related crime didn't go down
You're missing the point.
1. 'Reported' by whom? The police? Where did their data come from? Witnesses? Were they lying? There are so many variables.
2. That's irrelevant. The statistics are a decade out of date, and so do not relate to the contemporary context of this argument.
3. Did crime on the
whole go up? Is this the beginning of a consistent trend or just a blip?
Please, never trust statistics so blindly. Read this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics].
1- its saying that if the populace wanted it changed, it would have been done already
2- and the media likes to make us afraid of guns, the anti-gun people are a slight majority
3 a&b- these aren't my ideas, it was a study conducted by Gallup (one of the biggest study/survey organizations)
1. And I'm saying that what the populous wants is not always in its best interests.
2. So? That's completely irrelevant to the argument I am making. I can even go so far to say that you contradict your previous statement:
1- its saying that if the populace wanted it changed, it would have been done already
with
the anti-gun people are a slight majority
3. If you're not going to back it up then don't cite it. The human rights point stands no matter what, no-where in here [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/] does it say that ownership of a weapon is a human right. Point 3b, however, is entirely speculative, feel free to argue that to your heart's content.