From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:44:51 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec15042039@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>> at-home burglaries which result in confrontation *become*
>> robberies.
>
>Not necessarily.
>
by definition, robbery is the taking of another's property by force
or the implied use of force.  even if the burglar-come-robber is
unsuccessful in grabbing property, once the confrontation occurs
it's by definition a robbery.  NSW laws may describe things differently,
but that's the way it is up here.

>I see.  How would you react to a poster who said "How many babies must
>be shot before something is done about gun violence?"  Said poster
>using "babies" to empasize the innocent nature of so many gun
>casualties.

the fact is, HCI and other gungrabbers *do* use such images...
one of their propaganda leaflets has a young infant sitting next
to a revolver, with a caption along the lines of "...18 children
a day die from handguns..."  my use of dramatic images is merely
to show that disarmed NSW citizens may not appreciate gungrabbing
laws after they've been victimized. 

>>>Wright and Rossi's survey of criminals.)  Since gun ownership can't be
>>>100% effective at deterring "kick-ins", there must be some other
>>>reason why it doesn't happen.
>>>
>> i *love* this!  since its not 100%, it must be due to something
>> else!  since the correlation between smoking and cancer isn't
>> 100%, its just got to be due to something else, eh tim?  i take
>> it you smoke 3-4 packs a day?  interesting logic.
>
>My compliments on a clever piece of misdirection.  Like the
>correlation between smoking and cancer, the correlation in question is
>less than 100%.  This is because 0 is less than 100.  Unlike the

no, my compliments to you on trying to duck this one.  even if the
correlation between gun-ownership and kick-ins isn't 100%, your
statement implied it must therefore be zero (i.e., "...there must
be some other reason why it doesn't happen.").

>correlation between smoking and cancer, the correlation between
>kick-ins and gun deterrability is nonexistant:
>
this is an unsubstantiated (-able) assertion.  i'll ignore it.

>Kick-ins by criminals who might be deterred by guns: 0
>Kick-ins by criminals who are not deterred by guns: 0
>
[i just *love* these made-up numbers!  where do they come from?!?]

>No correlation here.  Interesting logic you use to claim causation
>when no correlation exists.  I take it you read your horoscope
>carefully each day.

[i can make up numbers that support my side.  however, because tim
seems to enjoy this aspect of debate so much i'll leave it to him...]

an interesting counterargument, because your comparison is meaningless.
the correct comparison is whether kick-ins vary as a function of
gun ownership (techincally, the correct comparison is the number
of criminals deterred by the perception of gun-ownership - i.e.,
"i don't think i'll kick that door in...that house may have an
armed citizen" - however, these values are unmeasurable).

tim, i think this has gotten to the point that we're falling out
of the general interest of t.p.g.  however, when i send mail to
you from gozer it bounces.  please try to email me at
rpsbetz@idbsu.idbsu.edu and we can take this off-line.

drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns