Issodhos writes:
> Martin wrote:
> >  Sorry, you *are* being deceitful, because you are applying your own
> >  argument in only one direction, the direction that suits you.  Norway
> >  has high gun ownership and low crime.  The US has high gun ownership
> >  and high crime (relative to Norway).  If you argue this demonstrates
> >  there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime, then you must
> >  also argue it demonstrates there is no correlation between gun
> >  ownership and low crime.
>
>      Perhaps you are being intentionally dense, or perhaps you are
> so bent on your ad hominem attempt to label me "deceitful" that you
> are missing the distinction.  Lets try again.

No, you're wrong.  Ad hominem refers to attacking an argument by
attacking the character of the person making the argument.  I wasn't
attacking your argument. I agree that gun ownership probably doesn't
correlate well with the crime rate.  I accused you of attempting to
deceive.  Period.  You attempted to deceive by using your argument to
support only one side of the argument, the side you want to promote,
while knowing it also supports the side you want to hide, namely that
high gun ownership does not lower the crime rate.  I see you are still
trying to do it:

> I agree that their is no correlation between gun ownership and low
> crime.  However, where criminal activity exists the presence of a
> firearm can deter individual attack, though it does not reduce
> overall criminality.

If the presence of a firearm deters an an individual attack, then it
prevents a crime.  If it prevents a crime, then it prevents a finite
rise in the crime rate.  If this happens reliably, then it would lead
to a correlation between gun ownership and a lowering of the crime
rate.  Since that isn't the case in America, it must mean there is
something wrong with your premise.  What is wrong with it is shown by
the deceitful way you phrase it: "where criminal activity exists the
presence of a firearm can deter individual attack...".  (a) Criminal
activity exists everywhere; (b) "can" refers to a possible outcome,
not a necessary outcome.  Again you have used only half of the meaning
to support your argument.  The other half of the meaning is that the
presence of a gun *can* induce the criminal to carry a gun where he
would not have carried one if he had good reason to believe his victim
wouldn't have one.  The presence of a gun *can* induce a criminal to
shoot his gun first.  That is why the police in Norway normally work
unarmed.

> Violent crime may be high and violent crime may be low regardless of
> the availability of firearms. Perhaps I am just not explaining
> myself well enough, but since I never advocated gun ownership based
> on a need for self-defense I will leave it to others to argue.  In
> other words, I do not see a need to justify gun ownership. Instead,
> the burden is on those who would use the power of the State to strip
> me of my right to own firearms.

What burden?  There is no burden.  Gun ownership was never justified.
The right to own firearms comes from the people (the state), not from
God.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701