Re: Mauser calls a decrease a "horrifying increase"
"John M. Maraldo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Isn't the issue, not whether we should prefer to live in Canada, but whether > gun control reduces violence. eh? My statement was about whether you should prefer lower violent crime rates to higher violent crime rates. Whether gun control reduces violence or not is a different question. >> I think a sane person would prefer lower violent crime rates (Canada) >> to higher violent crime rates (US), even the rates are falling faster >> in the US. -- Tim ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Re: Mauser calls a decrease a "horrifying increase"
Exactly so. It seems there isn't an overwhelming flood of safety seeking migrants wanting to move to Canada from the U.S. Perhaps because they realize they can have their guns and safety too by living in small towns in ME, NH, VT, ND, MN, MI or a host of other places (and the delights of Canadian winters for the places mentioned if that is their wish). But that isn't the issue at all for Mr. Lambert. He is an advocate of a point of view using the trappings of science. But science is about objective truth (as objective as possible given the nature of observers). To argue against a statement you know to be true might be attractive for a lawyer in Court, but is dishonest in science. Scientific ethics would oblige the correction to be given. Even suppressing data that supports a scientific observation under dispute would be dishonest. Nor is it honest for a scientist to assert that his distortions are justified by distortions given by others. Telling the truth as you understand it is the first obligation for a scientist. Mr. Lambert isn't a scientist, he is an advocate of a point of view that guns are bad and he is making every effort to discredit those providing the opposite point of view. Unfortunately for Mr. Lambert, the position he takes isn't supported by science. Phil > Isn't the issue, not whether we should prefer to live in Canada, but whether > gun control reduces violence. eh? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tim Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Guy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:28 PM > Subject: Re: Mauser calls a decrease a "horrifying increase" > > > > I think a sane person would prefer lower violent crime rates (Canada) > > to higher violent crime rates (US), even the rates are falling faster > > in the US. > > > > > > -- > > Tim > > ___ > > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof > > ___ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof > > -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Re: Mauser calls a decrease a "horrifying increase"
Isn't the issue, not whether we should prefer to live in Canada, but whether gun control reduces violence. eh? - Original Message - From: "Tim Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Guy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: Re: Mauser calls a decrease a "horrifying increase" > I think a sane person would prefer lower violent crime rates (Canada) > to higher violent crime rates (US), even the rates are falling faster > in the US. > > > -- > Tim > ___ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Re: Mauser calls a decrease a "horrifying increase"
"Philip F. Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And there are some shifts in perspective by Mr. Lambert in his > reactions to Lott/Mauser that are suspect. For example, Mr. Lambert > attacks Lott/Mauser's comment about increasing violence in Canadian > cities by shifting to overall Canadian violence (much non-city violence > included) which didn't increase. The earliest crime figures by city I could find at StatsCan were for 1995. Since that year the violent crime rate has decreased in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton, Hamilton and Quebec. The only large cities where it has increased are Winnipeg and Calgary. > Moreover, Mr. Lambert continues to obscure the increases in gun > violence in Britain and the increases in serious violence by using > overall violence figures that include less serious crimes (a criticism > he delivers against Mauser too). And he continues to drag out the > change in counting rules and ignore the increases that have happened > since the counting rules have changed. I'll continue to mention the change in the counting rules as long as people like Mauser and Lott compare crime figures under the old rules with those under the new rules. You don't seem to have the slightest problem with their conduct. Why is that? -- Tim ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Re: Mauser calls a decrease a "horrifying increase"
"Guy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> However, if you examine a graph of Canada's violent crime rate: >> http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/06#mauser >> >> you will see that it has decreased over the past decade. And Mauser >> cannot claim to be unaware of this since the graph comes from Mauser's >> own paper. More examination of Mauser's false claims at >> http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/06#mauser > > We see what appears to be a faster rate of increase in Canadian violent > crime in the 1980's than in the US, and a higher per capita rate as well As I explained in my post, the violent crime rate is defined differently in Canada, so it should not be compared with the US number. As the graph in my post shows, comparable violent crime rates (robbery and aggravated assault) are lower in Canada. Mauser wrote a lengthy report for the Fraser Institute comparing violent crime in Canada and the US and somehow neglected to notice this. > (Tim's table #1 -- incidentally, this table cites the FBI as the source for > both US and Canadian crime statistics. I was not aware the FBI tracked > Canadian crime waves). The graph actually gives Savoie 2002 as the source. > More to the point, during the 1990's, when firearm sales in the US were > rolling along nicely and states were passing "shall issue" laws with glee, > we see a growing per capita gap between US and Canadian violent crime. If I > were standing on the border, I would see the US rate steadily dropping after > 1991, and the Canadian rate peaking and staying roughly level. This would > make any sane person want to head south. I think a sane person would prefer lower violent crime rates (Canada) to higher violent crime rates (US), even the rates are falling faster in the US. -- Tim ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
RE: Mauser calls a decrease a "horrifying increase"
The Canadian violence rate would still be below most areas of the US (not below those areas where gun ownership is freest (i.e., Vermont, ND, SD), but not the Canadian suicide rate. However, what Mr. Lambert tends to ignore is that there is no evidence for real positive effect from the gun laws imposed in Canada, Australia and Britain (unless you count the switch in Australia from guns to hanging as the preferred means of suicide in the youth category). We can argue 'till the cows come home about whether the American model of freedom degrades public safety compared to Canada, Britain, and Australia (for people not in the illegal drug trade, it appears the US wins -- for those in the drug trade, the US loses). There are enough differences in counting rules that comparisons between countries are difficult. The difference in approach to illegal drugs provides a big difference. And there are some shifts in perspective by Mr. Lambert in his reactions to Lott/Mauser that are suspect. For example, Mr. Lambert attacks Lott/Mauser's comment about increasing violence in Canadian cities by shifting to overall Canadian violence (much non-city violence included) which didn't increase. Mr. Lambert also ignores the big increase in Canadian violence from the 1950's and the increasingly restictive gun laws introduced during that period. He criticizes Mauser for claiming an increase in violence over the past decade by pointing to a graph which he says (correctly) shows no decrease -- but if you look at the full extent of the graph (20 years), there are great increases during a period where Canada passed a number of gun laws. Any sane man would look at the data and ask where is the evidence that all the money spent for these gun laws has had a positive impact on violence? Moreover, Mr. Lambert continues to obscure the increases in gun violence in Britain and the increases in serious violence by using overall violence figures that include less serious crimes (a criticism he delivers against Mauser too). And he continues to drag out the change in counting rules and ignore the increases that have happened since the counting rules have changed. Violence wasn't supposed to increase that way. The restrictions were supposed to decrease violence, but it appears that year-to-year the violence grows (at least in England and Wales). Phil > > More to the point, during the 1990's, when firearm sales in the US were > rolling along nicely and states were passing "shall issue" laws with glee, > we see a growing per capita gap between US and Canadian violent crime. If I > were standing on the border, I would see the US rate steadily dropping after > 1991, and the Canadian rate peaking and staying roughly level. This would > make any sane person want to head south. > > > Guy Smith > Silicon Strategies Marketing > 630 Taylor Avenue > Alameda, CA 94501 > 510-521-4477 (T) > 510-217-9693 (F) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.SiliconStrat.com > > > > ___ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof > ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
RE: Mauser calls a decrease a "horrifying increase"
> In a letter to the National Post, Gary Mauser claims that > > It should not surprise many people that Canada's gun laws > have not worked (More Gun Control Isn't The Answer, John > R. Lott Jr., June 15). Anyone living in a big Canadian city has > witnessed the horrifying increase in violent crime over the past > decade. The first question that pops into my alleged mind is "when did Canada's gun control laws hit a critical mass"? In other words, when did practical ownership of self defense weapons become problematic or discouraged -- in 1980, 85, 90, . . .? This becomes a more interesting question when: > However, if you examine a graph of Canada's violent crime rate: > http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/06#mauser > > you will see that it has decreased over the past decade. And Mauser > cannot claim to be unaware of this since the graph comes from Mauser's > own paper. More examination of Mauser's false claims at > http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/06#mauser We see what appears to be a faster rate of increase in Canadian violent crime in the 1980's than in the US, and a higher per capita rate as well (Tim's table #1 -- incidentally, this table cites the FBI as the source for both US and Canadian crime statistics. I was not aware the FBI tracked Canadian crime waves). More to the point, during the 1990's, when firearm sales in the US were rolling along nicely and states were passing "shall issue" laws with glee, we see a growing per capita gap between US and Canadian violent crime. If I were standing on the border, I would see the US rate steadily dropping after 1991, and the Canadian rate peaking and staying roughly level. This would make any sane person want to head south. Guy Smith Silicon Strategies Marketing 630 Taylor Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 510-521-4477 (T) 510-217-9693 (F) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.SiliconStrat.com ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
