Hiku said:
Farsala said:
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.
|
But I asked you how that particular comparison was skewed. You claimed it was. So please elaborate how, to the point where it is relevant to the statistical difference.
And I know USA is different. I pointed that out myself. But that's not an argument against trying, or why it has been successful for other countries who are also different from each other.
As for your Iowa example, like Palou told you: "How in the world did you get that conclusion from that data? The ones you took clearly shows a correlation between gun ownership and murder."
In Iowa you have a the highest gun per capita ratio (0,9 guns per person) out of all three examples you gave, and also the highest murder rate (0,71/100 000).
Canada: 0,308 guns per person and a murder ratio of 0,38/100 000.
Australia: 0,21 guns per person and a murder ratio of 0,16/100 000.
Not just did the example with the highest gun ratio have the highest murder ratio (Iowa), but the place that had the lowest gun ratio (Australia) also happened to have the lowest murder ratio.
I'm not making the claim that this proves a correlation between gun density and murder ratio in this particular situation. But the examples you chose suggest that there is. The opposite of the point you were trying to make.
Now I'm sure you could find other examples that better suits your point. And yes there are a number of factors you have to consider in many of these cases. But if we're talking about which examples speak the most clear language, I would have to say it's statistics that doesn't compare itself to other nations. Such as my Australia example. You can draw the conclusion that it made a difference for them. And again, I'm not saying that guarantees it would have the same effect in the US. Just that "different" doesn't mean it wouldn't have possitive effects either.
|
I think it is skewed because it is Australia vs USA. Just like my comparison of Iowa vs Australia is skewed. Australia's policies would point positively towards many US states, but for Iowa or other sane states I don't think it would be so positive. USA encompasses so many different people and land that the policy simply wouldn't work nationwide imo. I suppose the classic word 'diverse' must be used.
It is obviously hard to explain since I chose a purposefully nuanced comparison to make a ridiculous claim. But the point was that Iowa has 3 times as many guns per person then Canada, but the murder rate isn't 3 times as much ; thus more guns don't always mean more gun murder. Anyways it recently came to my attention that the data for firearm ownership that I put for Iowa was false, I was hoping to drop it before someone fact checked me :P. The gun murder rate was true though.
With that said the data is very complicated. I have another source that says .061 per person but it is unclear if that includes all firearms. If so that is less firearms then Australia but more gun murder. I don't think I can believe that source at all just yet, but the situation is getting too complicated. Another source I have is from 2005, which is completely irrelevant by now 12 years later.
