
then it would help to, for example, have data that the slacker the gun laws of a country, the more / less / same homicides (obviously many other factors would need to be taken into account).
Saying "Someone stopped a crime with a gun" or "Someone did a crime with a gun" is meaningless.
Ideologies don't depend on data, no, but it does give them weight.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:14, Reply)

It is the "I don't know if I'm going to get killed if I burgle this house" thought process.
My understanding is that after the UK tightened its gun laws, "hot" burglaries increased significantly. Presumably, because people weren't afraid of the homeowner cappin' dey ass.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:21, Reply)

we've never had a culture of gun ownership. Hardly anyone owns a gun. Even the police don't normally carry them. Crime rates have consistently gone down for decades.
From what I can tell from dodgy internet statistics, the rate of civilian gun ownership seems to be rather an irrelevant factor in the amount of crime and deaths by shooting.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:26, Reply)

Do you have a link to those studies?
My personal belief is that gun law makes very little difference - there are so many other ways to kill people.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:34, Reply)

you could get hold of a cheap SUV and drive it into a school playing field while the kids are out to play, or mount the pavement of a busy shopping street. A car is potentially a very dangerous weapon if you just want to kill a bunch of people.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:37, Reply)

but the theory is that if everyone has power a sort of stable equilibrium is reached by individuals protecting themselves and each other. It doesn't necessarily matter that the equilibrium has more shootings than the state-controlled society, because the principle of freedom also has intrinsic value, which is difficult to quantify.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:22, Reply)

then you need data, right? Otherwise it is guesswork.
My example was over-simplified, but there is lots of crime data that could be analysed and debated rather than just people appealing to emotion.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:29, Reply)

it's not the data that justifies the values. it's the values that give relevance to the data.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:31, Reply)

as appealing to someone's emotions and not even trying to get statistics to back up your case?
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:39, Reply)

only two people with some ideological common ground can have a meaningful discussion of statistics. If one person values freedom more than life, how can you sway them by saying that their policies would result in loss of life?
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:43, Reply)

then it all becomes a matter of "faith" which is impossible and pointless to argue with as there is no language to do so.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
edit: obviously you can argue logically without data, though it helps to have some data. However, you can't argue logically if it is "emotions all the way".
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:48, Reply)

that's about right.
Our values don't come from reasoning, they come from the society we wish to fit into.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:51, Reply)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 17:26, Reply)