Quote:
Originally Posted by Orruar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Yes, and I later used the more specific term, which you then mistook for the minor programs FDR implemented in this area. Seriously, anyone who knows anything about American history knows that the FDR programs were minor in comparison when it comes to direct welfare. FDR at least tried to sell SS as a savings account and not a transfer system, whereas LBJ was much less strict in this manner.
I'm glad you can admit that you think there is a causal relationship. You have taken the first step towards rehabilitation. Correlation can give us guideposts towards causation, but cannot prove it directly. Your posts are full of statistics without the necessary logical arguments to help make that step towards causation. Look, I'm not some gun loving freak. Everyone accepts that there are limits to what weapons citizens may own. For instance, there are very few that believe that we should all be able to own nuclear weapons or bunker busting bombs. I think we're probably a little too loose with our laws, but as long as people like you are making multiple logical fallacies in your arguments, we're not likely to take a realistic and practical approach to the gun laws. I mean, you're not convincing anyone when you show data that Europe has lower murder rates. Whether they know it or not, they realize that far more factors come into play than just gun laws, and you're not being honest in your assessment.
|
You're not being honest in your assessment when you negate the fact that there is no where to go but up from you're coming from a depression and that the new deals 1 & 2 were multifaceted approaches that included huge amounts of spending. Attributing an increase in poverty to a war on poverty is contradictory on the surface, and is not correlative or causal when analyzed.
This aside, my assessment, which must be the third time I have said this, is that crime rates are affected by much more than just gun laws, such as education levels, poverty levels, and other social standards. However, I said that gun laws are an element of the cause. Also, you seem to have some grand problem with correlation. Correlation pretty much asserts a probability. If there was a correlation that gun laws made no impact whatsoever on homicides by firearm and burglaries with firearms, I would take that seriously, but evidence suggests the opposite. And I have connected the dots between these statistics to a degree, but there's not much of a point in continuing the argument until people are willing to read them.
Notice I also posted a historical article outlining the gun debate and drafting of the 2nd amendment, an essay co-authored by 2 professors. It went completely ignored. So if I have to deal with reactionary arguments rather than people who will launch an investigation into the issue and see what conclusions can be drawn from facts about laws, statistics about murder rates and gun ownership, and reconcile them with logic, then the whole point of arguing is moot.
09-20-2013, 07:14 PM
Linear Mode
