From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Dec7.211643.15082@guinness.idbsu.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Dec15042039@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Dec14.194451.17083@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:43:20 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:44:51 GMT, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) said:
> (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.

Not if the burglar flees when confrontation occurs.

>>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 emphasize 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. 

So your admiration for HCI is such that you want to imitate their
tactics?  My reaction to your dramatic images was "What planet is this
guy from?" and I've read enough of this newsgroup to at have at least
a little insight into the mindset of American pro-gunners.  What do
you think the reaction of a typical NSW resident would be?

>>>>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?!?]

I'm not aware of a single kick-in in NSW.  (News of one would sell a
lot of newspapers, so it's not as if they are kep secret.)  You
claimed this was because current levels of gun ownership deterred
kick-ins.  Since the total number is 0, the number for any subset of
criminals is also zero.

> 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).

But we don't see ANY kick-ins.  What factor is 100% effective at
stopping criminals who are not deterred by guns from doing kick-ins?

> 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.

OK, I'm attempting to establish email communication with you.  If
t.p.g readers want to see this discussion continue publicly, they has
better mail Drew or me.

Tim