capricorn wrote:at1with0 wrote:Certainly one can't look at that spreadsheet, which could easily have been fabricated, and say either way that gun control has or hasn't been effective.
As I said before, I've provided the link to the spreadsheet below the image. It is not fabricated, it came from the Australian Government. If the gov't if fabricating statistics then there is a more serious problem going on.
But I agree, you cannot look at the stats and say the gun control has or has not been effective. There simply is no proof that gun control provides the desired effect.
You trust the Australian government more than I do, it seems.
However, one can simply turn to the drug culture or "the war on drugs" to evaluate the effect that criminalizing something has on society.
Is your point here that there is no point in criminalizing something that people are just gonna do anyway?
at1with0 wrote:Sexual assault and kidnapping and robbery and homicide has to be subdivided into two categories (at least): those involving guns and those not involving guns.
This is where I disagree and the crux of my argument; a crime is a crime whether committed with a gun or not. If you take away the guns that is fine, but if people continue to kill or rob or whatever, what is the difference it is done with a gun or not? In the grand scheme of things, nothing would have really been solved.
I think analyzing the data to study the effectiveness of gun control, one HAS to subdivide the data into at least two categories, crimes committed with a gun and without. The difference between crimes with guns and crimes without using guns is going to be the only thing that would prove or disprove the effectiveness of gun control. As it is, the spreadsheet is useless in its inconclusiveness.