16
   

Toddlers Have Already Shot 23 People This Year And It’s Only May

 
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 09:06 pm
@Linkat,
Quote Linkat:
Quote:
Here is an interesting article about why these comparisons do not make sense -- the comparisons of US murder rates and so forth - basically saying how these stats and comparisons are biased.


Unfortunately for the article, the comparison of the US to other wealthy, developed countries does make sense. We compare our education system to other developed countries, our health sytem to other developed countries, our life expectancy to other developed countries. We're not at the top of the list but we are not that far from the top in most categories.

Comparing our murder rates to impoverished nations with sky high murder rates doesn't make sense. Do we compare our life expectancy to countries where people see a doctor only a few times in their life?

So yes, our murder rate is moderate compared to most countries, because most countries are poverty stricken, as of this writing. But we compare every other aspect of our standard of living to the other fortunate developed countries, so to break ranks and start comparing ourselves to impoverished Third World nations would be showing bias.

As for diversity, it is true the diverse US will probably always have a somewhat higher rate of violence than homogenous nations where only one type of people have lived their since the Ice Ages. Not all of our newly arrived groups get along with each other. But countries like France and the UK also have a lot of immigrants from poor countries, they too are diverse, and their murder rates are about a quarter of the US rates. So it isn't just diversity that causes the problem.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W9LkhCs6ib4/Vhi6mB06y9I/AAAAAAAAIn0/4KoXL5iNehE/s640/imrs.php.jpg
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 09:52 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Unfortunately for the article, the comparison of the US to other wealthy, developed countries does make sense.

Perhaps, but that is not what is being done.

In a best case scenario what these bogus comparisons do is count any country that has a low homicide rate as "modern" and any country with a high homicide rate as "backwards" regardless of that country's true state of development. Then they presume that any country with low homicide rates has low gun ownership levels even if that is not true. The result is an entirely fraudulent picture of the relation of guns to homicides.

More often though, the studies are far more bogus than even that level of fraud. Quite often, these studies refer only to "gun homicides" as if people who are killed by other means are not actually dead. So they can point to a reduction in guns leading to a reduction in "gun deaths" and make it sound as if all homicides are being reduced, when in reality the reduction in guns did not reduce the number of homicides at all.

Regardless of the method of fraud though, fraudulent statistics are worthless as a way of determining the truth.
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 10:19 pm
@oralloy,
Actually, I think they have done a pretty good job. The only objection the critic had was leaving Mexico off the list because they have a drug war going on. The article snidely said the US should be left off the list, but in the US the drug crime is not so great that sheriffs in small towns are simply leaving their job because they are afraid of being shot by the drug gangs. That happens in Mexico.

Also, according to the UN's Human Development Index, Mexico would be the poorest country on that chart. Chile, which has a gun violence rate nearly as high as the US, was included. And Chile, according to the Human Development Index, is ranked #40 in the world. Mexico is ranked #71.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W9LkhCs6ib4/Vhi6mB06y9I/AAAAAAAAIn0/4KoXL5iNehE/s640/imrs.php.jpg
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 10:37 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Actually, I think they have done a pretty good job.

Every one of these studies uses one of the two versions of fraud that I detailed in my previous post. Fraudulent data has no value.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 11:54 pm
@oralloy,
I actually agree that gun homicides is less useful than simply listing homicides. But Mexico is still in a state of drug war, so excluding Mexico still makes sense. Mexico has a murder rate of 18.9 per 100,000 inhabitants, and it's overall quality of life is number 71, which would make it questionable to consider it an advanced country.

The US is listed #102 for overall homicides, but our homicide rate is erroneously listed as 3.8 per 100,000 inhabitants, when it actually is 4.5. We should be listed #116. You have to admit, that's pretty pathetic.

Britain and France, both diverse, are #32, (1.0 murders per 100K inhabitants),and #39, (1.2 murders per 100K inhabitants). So guns clearly are making the difference in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 01:04 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
it actually is 4.5. We should be listed #116. You have to admit, that's pretty pathetic.

We have violent neighborhoods where life is much more like the conditions in an impoverished country. Most of the homicides are in those neighborhoods.


Blickers wrote:
Britain and France, both diverse, are #32, (1.0 murders per 100K inhabitants),and #39, (1.2 murders per 100K inhabitants).

Notice how France's relatively high rate of private gun ownership does not lead to a dramatically increased homicide rate?


Blickers wrote:
So guns clearly are making the difference in the US.

There is no evidence that guns are the cause of the difference in the US.

Taiwan has very few private guns, and the last time I saw their numbers they had a homicide rate higher than the US.

Switzerland has lots of privately-owned guns, and their homicide rate is fairly low.

It wasn't too long ago that people could freely buy and own machine guns in Switzerland, and their homicide rate was fairly low then as well.
Walter Hinteler
 
  5  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 02:14 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Notice how France's relatively high rate of private gun ownership does not lead to a dramatically increased homicide rate?
You certainly are aware that France has one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?
Germany, btw, has the Germany, has the fourth highest per capita rate of gun-ownership in the world, behind the U.S., Switzerland, and Finland.

And Switzerland ... ... Although not a member of the EU, Switzerland’s participation in the Schengen Agreement - which allows for passport-free travel within its 26 signatories – obliges it to carry out any reforms to EU gun law. Thus, for instance, the number of Swiss keeping their army-issue rifle or pistol after military service has dropped by three quarters in ten years.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 03:33 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
You certainly are aware that France has one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?

Apparently not strict enough to prevent a fairly large number of Frenchmen from owning firearms.


Walter Hinteler wrote:
Germany, btw, has the Germany, has the fourth highest per capita rate of gun-ownership in the world, behind the U.S., Switzerland, and Finland.

Germany is another country where the presence of guns does not lead to a high homicide rate.


Walter Hinteler wrote:
And Switzerland ... ... Although not a member of the EU, Switzerland’s participation in the Schengen Agreement - which allows for passport-free travel within its 26 signatories – obliges it to carry out any reforms to EU gun law. Thus, for instance, the number of Swiss keeping their army-issue rifle or pistol after military service has dropped by three quarters in ten years.

Is there some EU regulation that now prevents them from keeping their former service weapons?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 04:23 am
Guns don't kill people. Toddlers with guns kill people.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 04:25 am
@Walter Hinteler,
It's also related to the control of ammunitions. Guns without bullets are not very dangerous, so controlling ammunitions is a good adjunct to gun laws.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 05:00 am
@Olivier5,
I would be surprised if French law prevents people from having ammunition for a gun if they are legally allowed to have that gun.

But I confess that I don't have a large amount of information about French law, so I guess it is possible.

It seems odd though, if it is the case.
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 05:20 am
@Blickers,
Not all the countries mentioned in the article are poverty-stricken . Also the US has many poverty-stricken areas of the country. The point the article was making was it isn't so cut and dry to compare the US to just a select pickings of other countries.

I would think education comparisons should also follow suit. It is tough to compare countries in general that have different cultures and different demographics of any kind.

There could be a million other reasons impacting what causes the murder rate in one country to be different than another. You can guess but you can not come up with a strong conclusion unless all other variables are equal.
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 05:24 am
@Blickers,
Actually that is not true. The writer used Mexico as an example sand stated it might be a better comparison, in part because of drug gangs in the US.

The point of the article is that income level isn't the only indicator for comparison not that Mexico should be included. He listed several other countries he thought should be included.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 05:28 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Is there some EU regulation that now prevents them from keeping their former service weapons?
That aren't "former service weapons" but actually "Swiss army rifles" (= owned by the Swiss Armed Forces).
They have them legally at home, but the private use of those semi-automatic weapons in negotiation.

oralloy wrote:
Germany is another country where the presence of guns does not lead to a high homicide rate.
Correct. Thanks to our weapon laws ...
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 05:30 am
@Blickers,
There were other reasons also that the countries you mention have greater differences than the US than diversity . ..still the US is much more diverse than France and England. It was one reason he gave of several.

You writing kind of like the article states these stats are done...just picking and choosing what works to fit the results you want.

A more clear picture is to take all countries where you have good stats and compare. Then see what may be the differences and similarities between groupings. That would give a clearer picture.

That is if you really want to learn something about the the stats.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 05:38 am
@oralloy,
I don't know the detail but ammos are regulated. You can't find them in supermarkets either.

The cultural dimmension is also important. In France, owning a gun (other than a hunting riffle if you hunt) is considered slightly wacko. It's for the paranoids.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 06:10 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
I don't know the detail but ammos are regulated. You can't find them in supermarkets either.
You need the licence for the weapon the munition is thought for.
Besides that, the amount is regulated ... LE CLASSEMENT ET LES REGLES D’ACQUISITION ET DE DETENTION DES MUNITIONS
woiyo
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 06:18 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
Guns have gotten into this culture in a big way. Killings like this will continue until we make legislation to get guns out of the everyday life of so many Americans.


The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What is a Militia?

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Therefore, the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms so they can FORM a militia when necessary. The right shall not be infringed presumes the right preexists.

So it has nothing to do with hunting.

The States have the right to legislate gun ownership as they should. So the problem has been enforcement of existing gun laws by the States. With rights comes responsibilities and GUN OWNERS have a responsibility. Law enforcement also have a duty to enforce.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 06:26 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Thanks. So the current quota is 1000 rounds max per year (and at any moment), if you legally own the corresponding gun.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 06:26 am
@Olivier5,
What about Italy, you said you lived there. I wish I was world traveler. The food network has a few shows there and it always looks so pretty. I guess I still have a picture in my mind of the way it looks in Godfather II.

Our cultural has always considered guns a right, I guess because most people coming to this country back then seemed to be fleeing something from somewhere. (Except for the slaves, they were brought over in chains like animals...) I watch a lot of movies, anyway, like Bill Murray said, "Our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world..."
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 09:25:11