Several posters in this thread, particularly karajorma, are far more concerned about slandering jr2's argument as racist than about actually reading it. Calling it "racist" allows you to dismiss the whole post without allowing it to challenge your thinking.
Never mind that the Japanese comparison was only one small section of the statistics, and the author even admitted it was a "crude and partial" solution. Talking about "cherry-picked nonsense", karajorma -- your last several posts have been fixated on the Japanese/Japanese-American argument, while ignoring every other statistic in jr2's post and the linked article
I pointed out what utter bull**** the UK part of the argument was too. And that was completely ignored, presumably cause everyone realised what bull**** it was. I have only replied to the parts that other people have attempted to argue with me about. My last posts have only been about that part of the argument because that has been the only thing anyone has cared to talk about.
Never mind that the Japanese comparison was only one small section of the statistics, and the author even admitted it was a "crude and partial" solution.
No.
The source pointed out that it was crude and partial. The author of the argument jr2 posted completely ignored that fact (and the fact that it was an argument based on data that is 37 ****ing years old!) and presented it as a relevant argument why Japan's current crime rate is nothing to do with their gun ban. The source then goes on to argue that you
should not use data in exactly the way that jr2's article uses it. It argues that comparing the difference between two countries in such a crude fashion should not be used to buttress pro or anti gun control arguments. Having read that, the author of jr2's article used it to buttress a pro-gun argument. That's why it is not only cherry-picked, but downright disgustingly deceitful.
The article that jr2 post is just as bad in its entirety. We could go through it line by line and dissect it. I've done that sort of thing several times before and seen others do it too, but I'm not going to do that not because I can't but because of a much more important reason.
That's why, I say again, jr2 cites statistics and you call it racist. And yet you accuse your opponents of shouting rhetoric?
Yes. Did you fail to read my earlier posts on this thread? At no point during this thread have I attempted to put forwards a pro-gun control argument. I may have called jr2's argument bull**** but I'd have done exactly the same had someone posted a similar pro-gun control post. Did you fail to notice that I have repeatedly said that using bull**** statistics about the UK to advance either side of the argument is stupid?
My feeling on this subject is that Americans will never solve the gun crime debate in any meaningful way because they prefer to shout pro and anti gun control arguments at each other rather than actually try to compromise on a solution.
That is why I have no interest in taking apart the entirety of jr2's post. Because by doing so I would be continuing the fine tradition of arguing about minutia while the body count builds up.
If you want to argue pro vs anti gun control, go to it. Hell, I might even join in whenever they start bull****ting about the UK. If that's the attitude of your country, fine. It merely proved my first post on the subject was spot on about what the rest of the world should think on this issue. "It's not the people of my country dying by the bucket load, **** it!"
But if you want to actually try to suggest a compromise that might work
like other people on this thread including myself have done, if you actually want to try to improve matters rather than spitting rhetoric and bull**** statistics at each other, that would be a better way to continue this thread. But given that this is not the first time I've suggested you do that, I very much doubt that's what you want.
