On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
Frank" "frank wrote:
On 8/10/2016 7:45 PM, Dechucka wrote:

"Frank" "frank wrote in message
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
as good as any
According to this I would not be allowed to hunt with my
semi-automatic shotgun. Could I even own it since I no longer
target shoot with it.
I don't care what you Ozies say.

Hey moron you were talking about trap shooting. You were wrong and a
typical ignorant septic.

BTW what do you hunt with a semi auto shotgun?

Last answer as I'm k'fing thread. Wasting my time. Think I said
earlier I've owned gun for over 40 years and started using for trap
and skeet, waterfowl and small game. Later scoped it for deer and no
longer shoot targets. State law requires it be plugged for 3 rounds
only.
What the **** do you Ozies care about our gun laws?

Misery loves company ?

Australian gun laws Work that's what. The murder rate in the US is (3.9 per 100,000). The murder rate in Australia is only 1.6 per 100,000.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:16:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
Frank" "frank wrote:
On 8/10/2016 7:45 PM, Dechucka wrote:

"Frank" "frank wrote in message
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
as good as any
According to this I would not be allowed to hunt with my
semi-automatic shotgun. Could I even own it since I no longer
target shoot with it.
I don't care what you Ozies say.

Hey moron you were talking about trap shooting. You were wrong and a
typical ignorant septic.

BTW what do you hunt with a semi auto shotgun?

Last answer as I'm k'fing thread. Wasting my time. Think I said
earlier I've owned gun for over 40 years and started using for trap
and skeet, waterfowl and small game. Later scoped it for deer and no
longer shoot targets. State law requires it be plugged for 3 rounds
only.
What the **** do you Ozies care about our gun laws?

Misery loves company ?

Australian gun laws Work that's what. The murder rate in the US is (3.9 per 100,000). The murder rate in Australia is only 1.6 per 100,000.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct in the context that you intend.
Crime rates in Australia are lower across the board than in the U.S.
In 2014 (from Wikki):
Australia -
Murder 1.0/100,000
Robbery 21.5/100,000

U.S. -
Murder 4.5/100,000
Robbery 113/100.000

--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:00:25 +0700,
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:16:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
Frank" "frank wrote:
On 8/10/2016 7:45 PM, Dechucka wrote:

"Frank" "frank wrote in message
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
as good as any
According to this I would not be allowed to hunt with my
semi-automatic shotgun. Could I even own it since I no longer
target shoot with it.
I don't care what you Ozies say.

Hey moron you were talking about trap shooting. You were wrong and a
typical ignorant septic.

BTW what do you hunt with a semi auto shotgun?

Last answer as I'm k'fing thread. Wasting my time. Think I said
earlier I've owned gun for over 40 years and started using for trap
and skeet, waterfowl and small game. Later scoped it for deer and no
longer shoot targets. State law requires it be plugged for 3 rounds
only.
What the **** do you Ozies care about our gun laws?

Misery loves company ?

Australian gun laws Work that's what. The murder rate in the US is (3.9 per 100,000). The murder rate in Australia is only 1.6 per 100,000.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct in the context that you intend.
Crime rates in Australia are lower across the board than in the U.S.
In 2014 (from Wikki):
Australia -
Murder 1.0/100,000
Robbery 21.5/100,000

U.S. -
Murder 4.5/100,000
Robbery 113/100.000

41.0% of the robberies in the US are committed with firearms. Knives
and other cutting instruments were used in 7.8%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...-crime/robbery

The correlations between firearm ownership and violent crime are
pretty much uniformly positive, and lead to some of the most
imaginative spin you'll ever hear from the pro-gun-absolutist crowd.

It's such a strong incentive that some of them actually do some
research to learn something, although they're looking for confounding
arguments rather than enlightenment. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:11:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:00:25 +0700,
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:16:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
Frank" "frank wrote:
On 8/10/2016 7:45 PM, Dechucka wrote:

"Frank" "frank wrote in message
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
as good as any
According to this I would not be allowed to hunt with my
semi-automatic shotgun. Could I even own it since I no longer
target shoot with it.
I don't care what you Ozies say.

Hey moron you were talking about trap shooting. You were wrong and a
typical ignorant septic.

BTW what do you hunt with a semi auto shotgun?

Last answer as I'm k'fing thread. Wasting my time. Think I said
earlier I've owned gun for over 40 years and started using for trap
and skeet, waterfowl and small game. Later scoped it for deer and no
longer shoot targets. State law requires it be plugged for 3 rounds
only.
What the **** do you Ozies care about our gun laws?

Misery loves company ?

Australian gun laws Work that's what. The murder rate in the US is (3.9 per 100,000). The murder rate in Australia is only 1.6 per 100,000.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct in the context that you intend.
Crime rates in Australia are lower across the board than in the U.S.
In 2014 (from Wikki):
Australia -
Murder 1.0/100,000
Robbery 21.5/100,000

U.S. -
Murder 4.5/100,000
Robbery 113/100.000

41.0% of the robberies in the US are committed with firearms. Knives
and other cutting instruments were used in 7.8%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...-crime/robbery

The correlations between firearm ownership and violent crime are
pretty much uniformly positive, and lead to some of the most
imaginative spin you'll ever hear from the pro-gun-absolutist crowd.

It's such a strong incentive that some of them actually do some
research to learn something, although they're looking for confounding
arguments rather than enlightenment. d8-)

The implication is of course that "no guns=no crime" but certainly
Australia didn't find that true. Australian Bureau of Statistics
figures show that in 1915 murder rates were 1.8/100,000 and in 1998
(~20 years after gun control) they were 1.6/100,000. The highest
recorded was in 1988 (after gun control) with 2.4/100,000.

It might also be of interest to note that while actual murder rate did
not drop by an astonishing number what did change, again according to
the Bureau of Statistics records, "The percentage of homicides
committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in
1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The
figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."

Or to put it another way, "We murder just as many but now we don't use
one of those nasty guns any more."

But using the figures discussed above. The U.S. had 113/100,000
robberies of which we are told 41% were committed with firearms.
Leaving some 67/100,000 to be committed without firearms, one
supposes. Versus an Australian rate of 21.5/100,000, Or to put it
another way, some 3 times the number of robberies, even with the
handicap of not owning a gun.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:06:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:11:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:00:25 +0700,
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:16:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
Frank" "frank wrote:
On 8/10/2016 7:45 PM, Dechucka wrote:

"Frank" "frank wrote in message
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
as good as any
According to this I would not be allowed to hunt with my
semi-automatic shotgun. Could I even own it since I no longer
target shoot with it.
I don't care what you Ozies say.

Hey moron you were talking about trap shooting. You were wrong and a
typical ignorant septic.

BTW what do you hunt with a semi auto shotgun?

Last answer as I'm k'fing thread. Wasting my time. Think I said
earlier I've owned gun for over 40 years and started using for trap
and skeet, waterfowl and small game. Later scoped it for deer and no
longer shoot targets. State law requires it be plugged for 3 rounds
only.
What the **** do you Ozies care about our gun laws?

Misery loves company ?

Australian gun laws Work that's what. The murder rate in the US is (3.9 per 100,000). The murder rate in Australia is only 1.6 per 100,000.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct in the context that you intend.
Crime rates in Australia are lower across the board than in the U.S.
In 2014 (from Wikki):
Australia -
Murder 1.0/100,000
Robbery 21.5/100,000

U.S. -
Murder 4.5/100,000
Robbery 113/100.000

41.0% of the robberies in the US are committed with firearms. Knives
and other cutting instruments were used in 7.8%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...-crime/robbery

The correlations between firearm ownership and violent crime are
pretty much uniformly positive, and lead to some of the most
imaginative spin you'll ever hear from the pro-gun-absolutist crowd.

It's such a strong incentive that some of them actually do some
research to learn something, although they're looking for confounding
arguments rather than enlightenment. d8-)

The implication is of course that "no guns=no crime"

No, the statistics simply imply that more guns are associated with
more crime. But when 60% of the robberies are committed without guns,
you can hardly draw the conclusion that no guns = no crime.

... but certainly
Australia didn't find that true. Australian Bureau of Statistics
figures show that in 1915 murder rates were 1.8/100,000 and in 1998
(~20 years after gun control) they were 1.6/100,000. The highest
recorded was in 1988 (after gun control) with 2.4/100,000.

It might also be of interest to note that while actual murder rate did
not drop by an astonishing number what did change, again according to
the Bureau of Statistics records, "The percentage of homicides
committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in
1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The
figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."

Or to put it another way, "We murder just as many but now we don't use
one of those nasty guns any more."

But using the figures discussed above. The U.S. had 113/100,000
robberies of which we are told 41% were committed with firearms.
Leaving some 67/100,000 to be committed without firearms, one
supposes. Versus an Australian rate of 21.5/100,000, Or to put it
another way, some 3 times the number of robberies, even with the
handicap of not owning a gun.

John B. wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:11:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The correlations between firearm ownership and violent crime are
pretty much uniformly positive, and lead to some of the most
imaginative spin you'll ever hear from the pro-gun-absolutist crowd.

Even assuming this claim to be true, the existence of a correlation does not imply the
existence of a cause-and-effect relationship -- nor the direction of any cause-and-effect
relationship that may exist. Perhaps living in high-crime areas causes people to own guns
for self-defense -- but you'll never hear that from the anti-gun crowd, will you?

And how is it that Chicago and Washington DC have the strictest gun-control ordinances
anywhere in America, *and* among the highest rates of violent crime?

The implication is of course that "no guns=no crime" but certainly
Australia didn't find that true. Australian Bureau of Statistics
figures show that in 1915 murder rates were 1.8/100,000 and in 1998
(~20 years after gun control) they were 1.6/100,000. The highest
recorded was in 1988 (after gun control) with 2.4/100,000.

Another factor that makes the analysis difficult is improvements in trauma care. One of the
few positive outcomes of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the spinoff to civilian
medical practice of military methods and gear for treating high-velocity gunshot injuries. Our
homicide rate here in Indianapolis was, a couple of years ago, down significantly from
previous years, causing the law enforcement agencies to pat themselves on the back, and
keep patting, right up until a local trauma physician pointed out that the rate of aggravated
assault was *up*, and the main difference between an aggravated assault and a homicide
is the success or failure of emergency medical treatment. He said the docs, not the cops,
were responsible for the drop in homicides.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:58:34 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

John B. wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:11:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The correlations between firearm ownership and violent crime are
pretty much uniformly positive, and lead to some of the most
imaginative spin you'll ever hear from the pro-gun-absolutist crowd.

Even assuming this claim to be true, the existence of a correlation does not imply the
existence of a cause-and-effect relationship -- nor the direction of any cause-and-effect
relationship that may exist.

We already addressed that.. For this purpose, there is no need to show
cause and effect. Once you have the correlation, you can get the
desired result. It doesn't matter how you got there.

Perhaps living in high-crime areas causes people to own guns
for self-defense -- but you'll never hear that from the anti-gun crowd, will you?

So far, we haven't heard it from any crowd. g Why don't you look it
up, rather than taking wild guesses?


And how is it that Chicago and Washington DC have the strictest gun-control ordinances
anywhere in America, *and* among the highest rates of violent crime?

Ah, I didn't think anyone was still dragging out that old chestnut.

The reason is that having strict gun control doesn't keep guns out of
the hands of criminals, if all they have to do is to ride a bus for
five miles to get a gun.


The implication is of course that "no guns=no crime" but certainly
Australia didn't find that true. Australian Bureau of Statistics
figures show that in 1915 murder rates were 1.8/100,000 and in 1998
(~20 years after gun control) they were 1.6/100,000. The highest
recorded was in 1988 (after gun control) with 2.4/100,000.

Another factor that makes the analysis difficult is improvements in trauma care. One of the
few positive outcomes of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the spinoff to civilian
medical practice of military methods and gear for treating high-velocity gunshot injuries. Our
homicide rate here in Indianapolis was, a couple of years ago, down significantly from
previous years, causing the law enforcement agencies to pat themselves on the back, and
keep patting, right up until a local trauma physician pointed out that the rate of aggravated
assault was *up*, and the main difference between an aggravated assault and a homicide
is the success or failure of emergency medical treatment. He said the docs, not the cops,
were responsible for the drop in homicides.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:58:34 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

John B. wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:11:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The correlations between firearm ownership and violent crime are
pretty much uniformly positive, and lead to some of the most
imaginative spin you'll ever hear from the pro-gun-absolutist crowd.

Even assuming this claim to be true, the existence of a correlation does not imply the
existence of a cause-and-effect relationship -- nor the direction of any cause-and-effect
relationship that may exist. Perhaps living in high-crime areas causes people to own guns
for self-defense -- but you'll never hear that from the anti-gun crowd, will you?

And how is it that Chicago and Washington DC have the strictest gun-control ordinances
anywhere in America, *and* among the highest rates of violent crime?

The implication is of course that "no guns=no crime" but certainly
Australia didn't find that true. Australian Bureau of Statistics
figures show that in 1915 murder rates were 1.8/100,000 and in 1998
(~20 years after gun control) they were 1.6/100,000. The highest
recorded was in 1988 (after gun control) with 2.4/100,000.

Another factor that makes the analysis difficult is improvements in trauma care. One of the
few positive outcomes of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the spinoff to civilian
medical practice of military methods and gear for treating high-velocity gunshot injuries. Our
homicide rate here in Indianapolis was, a couple of years ago, down significantly from
previous years, causing the law enforcement agencies to pat themselves on the back, and
keep patting, right up until a local trauma physician pointed out that the rate of aggravated
assault was *up*, and the main difference between an aggravated assault and a homicide
is the success or failure of emergency medical treatment. He said the docs, not the cops,
were responsible for the drop in homicides.

I suggest that Mark Twain's statement that "Figures often beguile me,"
he wrote, "particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in
which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with
justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies,
and statistics." is very much true.

For example, I recently saw some statistics showing that there is a
correlation between CC Permits and gun crimes, that more CC permits
resulted in fewer gun crimes.

I have no doubt but what the statistics, year by year increase in CC
permits, is correct and that year by year decrease in gun deaths is
also true but whether they actually relate to each other is a whole
different equation. We might equally show a year by year growth in
home air conditioning systems, which is certainly true, but does that
relate to gun crime?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:26:17 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:58:34 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

John B. wrote in
m:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:11:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The correlations between firearm ownership and violent crime are
pretty much uniformly positive, and lead to some of the most
imaginative spin you'll ever hear from the pro-gun-absolutist crowd.

Even assuming this claim to be true, the existence of a correlation does not imply the
existence of a cause-and-effect relationship -- nor the direction of any cause-and-effect
relationship that may exist.

We already addressed that.. For this purpose, there is no need to show
cause and effect. Once you have the correlation, you can get the
desired result. It doesn't matter how you got there.

Perhaps living in high-crime areas causes people to own guns
for self-defense -- but you'll never hear that from the anti-gun crowd, will you?

So far, we haven't heard it from any crowd. g Why don't you look it
up, rather than taking wild guesses?


And how is it that Chicago and Washington DC have the strictest gun-control ordinances
anywhere in America, *and* among the highest rates of violent crime?

Ah, I didn't think anyone was still dragging out that old chestnut.

The reason is that having strict gun control doesn't keep guns out of
the hands of criminals, if all they have to do is to ride a bus for
five miles to get a gun.


Ed, you simply prove Mark Twain's statement that, "Figures often
beguile me," he wrote, "particularly when I have the arranging of them
myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often
apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies,
damned lies, and statistics." To be very much correct.

You simply seize on a set of statistics that "prove your point" and
ignore any evidence that your assertion is not the correct one.

But for a correlation, lets try the following:

Concealed Carry Permits:
1999 approximately 2.7 million permits issued i YU.S.
2014 approximately 11.1 million

Residential Air Conditioning Systems:
1993 approximately 68% of U.S. residence had air conditioning
2009 approximately 87%

You see, Growth in CC permits results in increased sales in
residential air conditioning systems.

To quote Mark Twain, "Figures often beguile me," he wrote,
"particularly when I have the arranging of them myself".

Or to put it another way, "any fool can gin up a set of numbers to
prove HIS point".

--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:45:09 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:26:17 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:58:34 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

John B. wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:11:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The correlations between firearm ownership and violent crime are
pretty much uniformly positive, and lead to some of the most
imaginative spin you'll ever hear from the pro-gun-absolutist crowd.

Even assuming this claim to be true, the existence of a correlation does not imply the
existence of a cause-and-effect relationship -- nor the direction of any cause-and-effect
relationship that may exist.

We already addressed that.. For this purpose, there is no need to show
cause and effect. Once you have the correlation, you can get the
desired result. It doesn't matter how you got there.

Perhaps living in high-crime areas causes people to own guns
for self-defense -- but you'll never hear that from the anti-gun crowd, will you?

So far, we haven't heard it from any crowd. g Why don't you look it
up, rather than taking wild guesses?


And how is it that Chicago and Washington DC have the strictest gun-control ordinances
anywhere in America, *and* among the highest rates of violent crime?

Ah, I didn't think anyone was still dragging out that old chestnut.

The reason is that having strict gun control doesn't keep guns out of
the hands of criminals, if all they have to do is to ride a bus for
five miles to get a gun.


Ed, you simply prove Mark Twain's statement that, "Figures often
beguile me," he wrote, "particularly when I have the arranging of them
myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often
apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies,
damned lies, and statistics." To be very much correct.

You simply seize on a set of statistics that "prove your point" and
ignore any evidence that your assertion is not the correct one.

But for a correlation, lets try the following:

Concealed Carry Permits:
1999 approximately 2.7 million permits issued i YU.S.
2014 approximately 11.1 million

Residential Air Conditioning Systems:
1993 approximately 68% of U.S. residence had air conditioning
2009 approximately 87%

You see, Growth in CC permits results in increased sales in
residential air conditioning systems.

To quote Mark Twain, "Figures often beguile me," he wrote,
"particularly when I have the arranging of them myself".

Or to put it another way, "any fool can gin up a set of numbers to
prove HIS point".

Your example is the opposite of what I've argued, John. You're
engaging in mindless associations. The correlation between gun
availability and suicides by gun is not only NOT mindless, it's a
proven dependency.

If you're going to engage in statistics-bashing, you should spend some
more time learning those points.

--
Ed Huntress