Quantcast
Mass shooting Las Vegas

Forums - Politics Discussion - Mass shooting Las Vegas

Permalite, Australia has 18M people back then. 18M v 323M. It's common sense that it's nowhere near the same. Australia is massive landwise but the majority of people are concentrated in the capital cities or around them.

And the government only had about 1M that were surrendered or bought back. Imagine trying to buy back 200M guns.

And we know that criminals can get guns in Australia - we've seen it multiple times over the past years.

And for the record - the surrendering of the firearms in australia wasn't voluntary - the government spent around $500M to buy back 660,000 guns.



Around the Network
Farsala said:
Hiku said:

Not if you account for population, which I do.
For example, police killed a total of two people in Norway between 2002 - 2015. (That's when the article was published.)
And in 2015 they fired their guns a tiotal of 2 times and 0 people were killed.
In the US, there have been 737 reported police killings so far just this year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

2 killings in 13 years in Norway.
737 just this year so far in the US. (It will probably reach around 1000 by the end of the year, like it did last year and the year before that.)

Needless to say, the population difference between Norway and USA is not 7000 times larger. It's 62 times larger.

Don't think you got the point. That is using skewed statistics to paint a narrative. When I could easily do the same thing in the opposite way.

The question is why only police? Why not blame poverty instead of guns? Why not take into account density (which also contributes to poverty)? etc. etc.

FYI I don't even really support guns, its just the arguments seem weak.

How is that particular comparison using skewed statistics then? It's easy to just say things without explaining. I'm sure there may be some factors worth taking into consideration. But none that would conceivably make up for the fact that USA's population isn't 7000 times bigger than Norways. Not even close.

And I'm not just looking at police. That was just one of many examples.
Another example isn't comparing itself to any other nation. It just shows the difference gun control can make in a particular country.
In Australia, before the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 they had 10 massacres in the 10 years prior to that. Basically 1 massacre per year for 10 years.
But in 1996 they "banned" guns. And in the 20 years that followed, they had 0 massacres.
You don't have to compare to another country to see that it made a noticable difference.

Not saying USA's situation is identical to Australia by any means. But developed nations where guns are essentially banned seem to have significantly fewer instances of gun violence, and even homocides per capita. In every country I've looked into so far that appears to be the case. And that includes nations that previously allowed guns.
That said I'm not implying that USA all of a sudden banning guns would be a good idea. If they ever wanted to get to that point I imagine they'd have to take a much longer road than some other countries because of the number of guns they already have in circulation, their situation with organised crime, etc.

I don't mind if you support guns or not as long as you explain your reasoning.



Farsala said:
People comparing Gun violence in USA to less population dense countries like Australia and Canada is ridiculous.

It be like me taking a single state and comparing it with them. In fact lets do just that.

Iowa- 90,000 guns /100,000 people, .71 murder/ 100,000 = 126,760 guns per murder
Canada- 30,800 guns/ 100,000, .38/ 100,000= 81,052 guns per murder
Australia - 21,000 guns/ 100,000, .16/100,000= 131,250 guns per murder

Looks like more guns don't always equal more violence, and this is with proximity to more dangerous states unlike Australia. Still we could take it a step further since Iowa is a lot more population dense then these ridiculously small population densities of Canada and Australia.

Iowa- 55person/Sqmi
Australia - 8.3
Canada- 10.2

But I don't feel like doing more calculations, it would be too easy.
In short, pretty uncomparable, we can skew stats all we like to paint a better narrative.

Also I feel like this only gets talked about so often is because everything in USA gets on the media, but a lot of things in other countries are simply ignored.

Disclaimer: Stats may not be perfect or completely correct, and could be outdated, but you get the point.

"Looks like more guns don't always equal more violence"

 

How in the world did you get that conclusion from that data? I mean, you can find other examples, but the ones you took clearly shows a correlation between gun ownership and murder. Guns per murder would only matter if you were trying to show a direct linear correlation, which no has ever said to be the case.

 

Lack of density also seems like a bad argument (I don't actually see how that should contribute significantly to violence - in Canada, as in everywhere else, almost everyone lives in urban areas - around Toronto, Montreal, and the West Coast. Who cares how much empty space is between these urban areas.)

 

Notice also that the average European country has a popultion density higher than the US. Germany, with a murder rate of about 0.8, has a density of 226/km2, which would put it between the 5th and 6th densesest US states. Also, 0.8 is bellow the murder rate of all US states, according to the most recent data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

sc94597 said:
Hiku said:

So what's up with those shots that barely sound like a birds chipper in James Bond movies, etc? Is that completely made up, or are there different level of suppressors capable of similar feats?

As far as I can tell, it is a hollywood invention. Unless the British government has some secret technology up their sleeves.  

http://science.howstuffworks.com/5-surprising-facts-gun-silencers.htm

"Gunshots are loud because superheated gases expand rapidly and produce shockwaves as they escape the gun's chamber. Silencers contain a series of expansion chambers that cool and dissipate the gases before they leave the barrel.

A silencer is a lot like the muffler on your car (in fact, both were invented by the same guy). Screwing a silencer onto the barrel of a gun doesn't "silence" the explosive bang, it just muffles the noise. That's why folks in the gun industry call them suppressors instead of silencers.

The decibel level of an un-suppressed 12-gauge shotgun is 160 decibels, louder than standing on the runway when a jet is taking off (150 decibels). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets 140 decibels as the threshold of pain, although it takes far less than 140 decibels to inflict long-term hearing damage with repeated exposure.

According to a fact sheet from SilencerCo, a Utah-based silencer manufacturer, a 12-gauge shotgun equipped with a silencer registers 137 decibels and a silenced .22 rifle is muffled to 116 decibels, slightly louder than an ambulance siren. Still loud, just not eardrum-busting loud. "

So my whole life has been a lie? T_T
Those silencers appeared so frequently in movies and games that I figured there were some that could do that.



Lawlight said:

Permalite, Australia has 18M people back then. 18M v 323M. It's common sense that it's nowhere near the same. Australia is massive landwise but the majority of people are concentrated in the capital cities or around them.


Of course, that's why we have this wonderful statistic called homicide rate, which takes in account population:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

The US has 4.88/100 000 people, versus 0.98 in australia (and similar numbers in other fully devellopped nations.)

 

For its development, there is no question that the US is an outlier, in its violence.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Around the Network

Look the reality is

If everyone in the crowd had an AR 15 there would likely be many people dead anyways

One because no one could really find where the shooting was coming from and likely firing bullets in the hotel room likely kill lots of innocents.

Reality is the precious guns that gun rights people wanted were useless here...



Lawlight said:
The amount of shit people are posting on Twitter... *sigh*

Yeah. It's as if the infowars whackos don't realize that gun restrictions doesn't mean we want to steal their guns and cause martial law.

 

Maybe (and just fucking maybe) gun violence is insanely high in the US and can be lowered with proper steps. But no, instead every bill brought will be dumbed into 'hurrr liberalz taken my guns abd liburty' and rejected as we enter this cycle when the next mass shooting occurs in 2-4 weeks.



sc94597 said:
Ganoncrotch said:

Can we just keep in mind those saying you need these guns to protect you from all the lethal bears in the States there have been 3 fatal bear attacks since September 2014 in the States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America

This is the 240+th Mass shooting (greater than 4 people shot) in 2017

This is the equivalent of suggesting drinking bleach to stop a nasty stomach bug for your country.

Except the chances of being attacked by a bear is much higher in rural country than being part of a mass shooting. Nobody said anything about being killed by a bear, but if you live in, say Alaska, you are more worried about bears, individual human criminals , and other wildlife, than mass shooters. 

In terms of individual deaths caused by guns it's 11,683 in 2017 so far and 2 to bears. Injuries from guns is just under 24 thousand people this year so far.

You might be worried about a bear... but you're literally 6000 times more likely to die to a gun than a bear in USA. Heck as per http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/food-allergy/peanut/how-many-people-die-each-year-from-peanut-allergies.htm you would be saving more lives if you took your gun into a store and started unloading into peanut products as they are 35-50times more likely to take a life during 2017 than a bear.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Hiku said:
Farsala said:

Don't think you got the point. That is using skewed statistics to paint a narrative. When I could easily do the same thing in the opposite way.

The question is why only police? Why not blame poverty instead of guns? Why not take into account density (which also contributes to poverty)? etc. etc.

FYI I don't even really support guns, its just the arguments seem weak.

How is that particular comparison using skewed statistics then? It's easy to just say things without backing them up. I'm sure there may be some factors worth taking into consideration. But none that would conceivably make up for the fact that USA's population isn't 7000 times bigger than Norways. Not even close.

And I'm not just looking at police. That was just one of many examples.
Another example isn't comparing itself to any other nation. It just shows the difference gun control can make in a particular country.
In Australia, before the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 they had 10 massacres in the 10 years prior to that. Basically 1 massacre per year for 10 years.
But in 1996 they "banned" guns. And in the 20 years that followed, they had 0 massacres.
You don't have to compare to another country to see that it made a noticable difference.

Not saying USA's situation is identical to Australia by any means. But developed nations where guns are essentially banned seem to have significantly fewer instances of gun violence, and even homocides per capita. In every country I've looked into so far that appears to be the case. And that includes nations that previously allowed guns.
That said I'm not implying that USA all of a sudden banning guns would be a good idea. If they ever wanted to get to that point I imagine they'd have to take a much longer road than some other countries because of the number of guns they already have in circulation, their situation with organised crime, etc.

I don't mind if you support guns or not as long as you explain you explain your reasoning.

I don't really support the guns, but just because something worked for Australia or other widely different countries, doesn't mean it would work for USA.

USA is after all unlike any other country with not only tons of guns, but a high population and that makes for some decent amount of gun violence, especially in poverty places.

Then take my Iowa example from earlier and you got a bunch of people with tons of guns and very little gun violence.

While Australia is not a lot of people without  a lot of guns and violence.

palou said:
Farsala said:
People comparing Gun violence in USA to less population dense countries like Australia and Canada is ridiculous.

It be like me taking a single state and comparing it with them. In fact lets do just that.

Iowa- 90,000 guns /100,000 people, .71 murder/ 100,000 = 126,760 guns per murder
Canada- 30,800 guns/ 100,000, .38/ 100,000= 81,052 guns per murder
Australia - 21,000 guns/ 100,000, .16/100,000= 131,250 guns per murder

Looks like more guns don't always equal more violence, and this is with proximity to more dangerous states unlike Australia. Still we could take it a step further since Iowa is a lot more population dense then these ridiculously small population densities of Canada and Australia.

Iowa- 55person/Sqmi
Australia - 8.3
Canada- 10.2

But I don't feel like doing more calculations, it would be too easy.
In short, pretty uncomparable, we can skew stats all we like to paint a better narrative.

Also I feel like this only gets talked about so often is because everything in USA gets on the media, but a lot of things in other countries are simply ignored.

Disclaimer: Stats may not be perfect or completely correct, and could be outdated, but you get the point.

"Looks like more guns don't always equal more violence"

 

How in the world did you get that conclusion from that data? I mean, you can find other examples, but the ones you took clearly shows a correlation between gun ownership and murder. Guns per murder would only matter if you were trying to show a direct linear correlation, which no has ever said to be the case.

 

Lack of density also seems like a bad argument (I don't actually see how that should contribute significantly to violence - in Canada, as in everywhere else, almost everyone lives in urban areas - around Toronto, Montreal, and the West Coast. Who cares how much empty space is between these urban areas.)

 

Notice also that the average European country has a popultion density higher than the US. Germany, with a murder rate of about 0.8, has a density of 226/km2, which would put it between the 5th and 6th densesest US states. Also, 0.8 is bellow the murder rate of all US states, according to the most recent data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The correlation isn't clear though. Iowans have 3 times as much guns as Canada but only 1.86 more gun violence. So on average more guns does not equal more gun violence as everyone seems to argue against. In other words, getting rid of the guns does not neccesarily mean less gun violence.

And by population density I tend to think poverty and thus more conflict. I take it as a minor correlation, for example USA as a whole vs Puerto Rico or NYC or Detroit etc.

That data is homicide rate  including non firearms, I am trying to discuss if more guns= more gun murder rate.

I need to sleep now though.



Ganoncrotch said:
sc94597 said:

Except the chances of being attacked by a bear is much higher in rural country than being part of a mass shooting. Nobody said anything about being killed by a bear, but if you live in, say Alaska, you are more worried about bears, individual human criminals , and other wildlife, than mass shooters. 

In terms of individual deaths caused by guns it's 11,683 in 2017 so far and 2 to bears. Injuries from guns is just under 24 thousand people this year so far.

You might be worried about a bear... but you're literally 6000 times more likely to die to a gun than a bear in USA. Heck as per http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/food-allergy/peanut/how-many-people-die-each-year-from-peanut-allergies.htm you would be saving more lives if you took your gun into a store and started unloading into peanut products as they are 35-50times more likely to take a life during 2017 than a bear.

The discussion wasn't about guns in general. It was about mass shootings. But again, you should look at the distribution of homicides, and not just the averages. In the county I grew up in the murder rate was less than 1 : 100,000, there were two-three murders in the entire county of 300,000 people per year and two were usually drug related. 

Compared to that the bear attacked my grandmother's cat, throws trash all over the place, destroyed tons of property over the years, etc. A bear was more of a nuisance to our lives than murderers. It isn't all about being murdered, because in most places the chances of being murdered are minimal. Even in place with higher murder rates, unless you are a drug dealer you don't have to worry too much. 

Once we start talking about indiscriminate mass-shootings the probabilities decrease even more, when talking about rural areas with low population densities.