By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Are you Democrat or Republican?? Take the Quiz.

DaHuuuuuudge said:
Kasz216 said:
DaHuuuuuudge said:
Kasz216 said:

Or honestly... hell

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/statcorr.php


Null Hypothesis: r = 0
Alternative Hypothesis: r <> 0
The easiest way to test this hypothesis is to find a statistics book that has a table of critical values of r. Most introductory statistics texts would have a table like this. As in all hypothesis testing, you need to first determine the significance level. Here, I'll use the common significance level of alpha = .05. This means that I am conducting a test where the odds that the correlation is a chance occurrence is no more than 5 out of 100. Before I look up the critical value in a table I also have to compute the degrees of freedom or df. The df is simply equal to N-2 or, in this example, is 20-2 = 18. Finally, I have to decide whether I am doing a one-tailed or two-tailed test. In this example, since I have no strong prior theory to suggest whether the relationship between height and self esteem would be positive or negative, I'll opt for the two-tailed test. With these three pieces of information -- the significance level (alpha = .05)), degrees of freedom (df = 18), and type of test (two-tailed) -- I can now test the significance of the correlation I found. When I look up this value in the handy little table at the back of my statistics book I find that the critical value is .4438. This means that if my correlation is greater than .4438 or less than -.4438 (remember, this is a two-tailed test) I can conclude that the odds are less than 5 out of 100 that this is a chance occurrence. Since my correlation 0f .73 is actually quite a bit higher, I conclude that it is not a chance finding and that the correlation is "statistically significant" (given the parameters of the test). I can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative.


-_-

This is a statistical inference test for a graph. The null hypothesis states that there is no correlation, whereas the alternative hypothesis states that there is. You seem to think that alpha levels are only used in conjunction with r-values, however the point i'm trying to make is that alpha values for determining statistical significance (the original segue for the whole 'disagreement') do not need to have an accompying r-val. An example? Let's say that i have to test data from a sample survey that talks about proportions of married men. You would use an alpha-level in your statistical inference to test the probability of obtaining a sample such as this.

I know I'm right, i'm not sure why i keep responding. -_-

I never said Alpha levels were only used in conjuction with R levels.  I suggested however that they were used with conjunction and R value.  While you suggested alpha levels have nothing to do with correlation or R Values.   As an example your talking about not seeing anything about correlation with anything in statistical significance.    Essentially I was argueing that squares are rectangles, while you were suggested they aren't.

Considering we are talking about whether the correlation with gun ownership and homicide is significant... I don't see what your perception of the arguement has to do with anything.  Since i would still be correct in terms of the original dataset

This can be seen by the fact that you just needed to invent a whole new data set unrelated to the data at hand to give an example of Cronbach's Alpha.  Which I do know about, do aknowledge exist, and have even used before.  I just don't understand what it has to do with the data at hand.  

To me, it seems like you originally thought tha Cronbach's Alpha was the be all end all of statistical significance.  Or jut thought it was the only use of "Alpha" Ignoring Alpha in regards to Pearsons R... or just not knowing of Pearson R's existence.  (Which is what you'd use in the original dataset in question.)   Which i suppose I could see if you spent a lot of time working for say the Census or the BLS since you might not have a lot of use for Pearson's R.

Though perhaps the whole thing is a misconception on both of our parts about what the arguement was about.  

Though why if this was your arguement you didn't say "What about Cronbach's Alpha?"   or even just link to it... I'm not quite sure.

Look, you said statistical significance means that something is proveable, which is false. I corrected you. I seem to be sucked into the Kasz method haha

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4878899

That's exactly what the Pearson's R does do though... it shows is something is significant enough to be used as proof.

If it isn't statistically signficant it can't be used as proof.  I mean... that's just the basics.  Any correlation that is not statistically significant can not be used as proof of a position.

Though yes, i do have  a problem with restating facts and showing proof over and over again even when it's clear the other person isn't interested in such things.  Largely because such things still prove informative for third parties.



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Michael-5 said:
sc94597 said:

In that case, Toronto is yours to do with how you wish and my land how I (and my fellow people) wish.  In the United States a handgun ban would devastate the elderly (who can't hold rifles or shotgun for whichever reason) and the weak (who would be harmed by the recoil.)  These are the most vulnerable people to criminals. Furthermore, concealed carry deters criminals. Hence, I would not support any type of gun prohibition in Pennsylvania, as there is no significant data that verifies a correlation between homicides and gun prohibition for all contexts. Nicely, my state legislators and representatives agree, as do the majority of fellow Pennsylvanians. As for gun control, as long as it's reasonable and effective, it's welcomed otherwise why waste one's time, tax dollars, and privacy on it? 


Second, a rifle is not the only method of defence for the old and weak, taser guns are just as effective, lighter, non lethal, and have less recoil.

Also, your last sentence agrees with me. If gun control is reasonale and effective (Ban handguns, guns most often used to kill, not all guns) then this is reasonable and effective.

Finally, damn you guys need to teach each other morals. It's not okay to hurt or steal. Old people shouldn't have to carry a gun around for "protection." That's just sad if you ask me. Pennsylvania is just across Lake Erie from us, why are homicide rates so high?

@ second Seriously? In a country with over 300 million guns, many of which are already on the black market and in the event of prohibition will be on the black market, you'll use a taser on a guy? Especially when it has happened that tasers can be non-effective against bigger individuals?

@ "last sentence agrees with me" Prohibition is not reasonable and will LEAD to crime. It happened in the 20's, with alcohol, it is happening now with the "war on drugs" it will happen with guns. 

@ I'm sorry, but if you subtract Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has a homicide rate of 1.8 (half of Toronto's), and a much lower criminalization rate. My county, which is below-income, has a homicide rate of .8 (a fourth of toronto's) albeit a high drug crime rate. Most people own weapons. Please don't talk about what you don't know, and certainly morals aren't being taught in most places of the world, particularly urban areas. Old people should carry guns, because they have been using them since they were five years old. They're comfortable with guns and they know how to use them for self-defense. Guns have saved the lifes of hundreds of elderly and weak in this year alone.  

Second - Um.. Yes. Wow really, you'd rather blow someones head off then knock them out? Different world Southern USA then Canada. Maybe people here are smaller? lol

@Ban - Guns aren't something people want for leisure time. Like you said, you own two guns, but never used them before. You probably brought them to a shooting range a few times, but how often you you use them? People consume alcohol as if it were a part of their lives. People drink to be happy, just like others watch TV, or play sports. I'm 100% fine with having guns at a shooting range for recreational use, but you don't use it in every day culture like you do alcohol.

Banning guns would not have the same effect as prohibition, and the war on drugs isn't as much of an issue here in Canada as it is the USA, people are taught in schools why drugs are bad, people are taught better morals here.

As for Homicides rates, the numbers your wuoting are a complete lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto ; http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/pacrime.htm

Toronto's homicide rate is 3.3/100,000. Pennsylvania is 5/100,000 (Not 1.8). Other US cities, not far from Toronto have significantly higher homicide rates (Detroit is 33.8/100,000 for example).

Old people should carry gun...wow, things are different in the USA.

Also for the tenth time I didn't say handguns are the only, or prime reason why homicide rates are high. I just said that banning them would probably reduce them and there really is no reason why anyone should carry a portable man killer like that. You can't kill people when they are stealing from you, it may be self defence, but it's still murder. This is an example of how morals are not being taught where you're located.

We also did agree, most of the reasons are probably psychological, social, racial, etc. However Psychological issues among individuals are random genetic mutations, no one country will have more psycho's then others, and Toronto is probably more multiculteral then most cities in North America. So why are homicide rates here so much lower? We have better institutions to identify and help those with mental illnesses and addiction, better morals (you don't kill people unless your own life is in danger), better drug control, higher restrictions on alcohol use (nothing above 40% is sold in Ontario), etc, etc.

All I'm arguing is there is no reason to have handguns illegal, and I'm shocked that anyone is questioning that. Target practice? Really? That was one of your first reasons for owning a gun, along with "because I can." That's just being ignorant.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

kaneada said:
Michael-5 said:

A. In Canada it's 40%, I assumed it was the same in the USA. My bad, but hey, this is probably a big reason why the US homicide rate is that much higher in the USA then Canada.

B. Hand guns have a use for self protection? Against what other hand gun users? You can fit a Rifle in a car NP, and a Rifle is more intimidating for defence in the home.

C. Where do I argue hand guns being more dangerous then assault rifles? I correlated them because hand guns are the next one down due to their small size and conceilability. Yes Rifles are concealable, but it's more difficult to have one hidden and available for immediate use, and it's much harder to run with one in your pants, or down your back. With that in mind, it's much harder to surprise people, and rob a store, or shoot someone.

D. Gun owners in Toronto would be detrimental to society since very few people carry a weapon. I don't even think it's legal here, and I've never seen someone other then a cop carry a gun before, at least in Canada. In the states it's probably different because people are so desensitized to guns, but low crime rates due to intimidation over preventive means is not the way to go IMO.

E. No it won't, Alcohol is heavily prohibited here, we went through the same prohibition you did (except it was much shorter here), and were fine. The second amendment is so old, the fact that people hide behind that still is amazing. Yes you have the freedom to carry a gun, but others should be free to roam town without the fear of being shot. In the states people of minorities and gays are heavily oppressed, I'm sure many of them don't feel comfortable with groups of white people carrying handguns, loaded.

However I agree about taking guns away, a lot of people, people like you and others from the south, would heavily oppose it. I severly doubt you'll see people shooting each other to import illegal hand guns, but people won't accept it. This is why it's important to teach people that it's immoral to kill, so that over time people won't see a need for it. I mean people don't carry guns here for a reason in Canada, we don't need one for "protection."

F. I agree, but having hand guns readily available for people such as these is definatly not a smart idea. Could you imagine a gang war turf with rifles and knives? First of all, gangstas would have to disguard their weapons in order to run from cops on neighbouring gangs due to their size, and second they would be much easier to identify.

I 100% agree, banning hand guns is not as fundamental of a cause as helping those in poverty and teaching kids good morals from a young age. I would even argue that you guys in the states should teach kids that it's bad to use guns outside of hunting. However I see no positive with keeping handguns legal.

However keep in mind, I'm not from the southern states. I'm from Canada, out homicide rates are significantly lower despite population, geology, population dencity, ethnicity (Toronto is the most multicultural city in North America, with the highest gay population in any city in NA), or anything. Just the idea of needing a gun for "protection" is absurd to me. If your a vulnerable individual and you really want protection, get a taser gun, or mace, it works just as well.

Find me a study which says hand guns work better for self defence for rape victims then mace or taser guns. I garentee you that is not the case in Canada, but it could be in the states.

The idea just seems wack to me.

A. I'd have to reasearch the effects of alcohol on the murder rate, but I would assume that most people with the intent of comitting a premeditated murder are probably clear headed and focused. However, I could be wrong about that.

B. There are many reasons a person might need to protect themselves in America. Personally, 31 years living in pretty much every Southern state in the US I've yet to find an actual need to defend myself in that manner. Once again I did state that I've never had to threaten anyone with a gun, as a matter of fact I don't even have a concealed carry permit and don't carry mine with me anywhere. 

C. It was implied in your proposal to ban them. That being said, no its really not any harder for someone to hold up a store with an assult rifle. The average American does not carry a fire arm on their person at all times and even if so most of us aren't trained to handle the fear of having a gun pointed in our direction. You're making a lot of assumptions here about how one person would commit an armed robbery if all they had were an assult or hunting rifle. Most would opt to conceal their idenity rather than possess a weapon. You also put a lot of faith in Law Enforcement, which is nowhere near adept at solving violent crimes as they would lead you to believe on TV. 

D. Perhaps you're right about that, but once again read point B. You have to realize, as a Candian, what you see about America is heavily sensationalized and limited to very small parts of this country. Like I said I've lived in every state in the South (on the east coast) and now live in Washington DC. I've never once felt threatened by a citizen and this is a pretty diverse neighborhood. 

E. Different cultures, different results. You aren't instilled from birth with the same sense of personal Liberty and individualism that we are. They take something away from you, you say oh well, they take it away from us and organized crime on a level this country had never seen rose. You have to consider the people and the values. You'd only be putting those items in worse peoples hands. Who would you rather have access to weapons, someone like me who keeps his responsibliy locked away in a box in his home, or some drug cartel who just realized they could get even richer because now certain classes of civilian firearms are now banned? 

Also you have to consider the politics of this society. Most of us are very weary of our government and do not want them interfering in our personal buisness or telling us how to conduct ourselves, which points to the sense of Liberty I defined earlier. Also consider that most of us want large scale law enforcement operations minimized, largely because of the cost to the tax payer, and its ineffectiveness at stopping the actual problems in this country, The War on Drugs being a great example of that. 

Lastly, gun ownership is an idea perpetuated on the idea that other people own guns and therefore I should own one, so I understand why it may be non-sensical to someone like you who probably lives in a society where only Law Enforcement can possess weapons. Once again I point to Asian countries where personal gun ownership has never been an issue, because its always been prohibited, where as in this country has been glorified and most likely always will be.

F. Once again heavy assumptions about American culture. Cops do not heavily patrol gang riddled neighborhoods like you see on TV. A gang fight occurs and cops do the smart thing, duck and get out of the way until the bullets stop flying. More often than not, fully automatic weapons are involved in these as well, so the idea that gangs don't already use these in large scale fights is absurd in and of itself.

Once again different cultures have to be handled differently to keep them stable. Remember that whole ridiculous idea that the USA should blanket the Middle East in Democracy to fix all their problems? How well did that work out? 

Lastly, I won't look for a study showing which weapon has the best chance of preventing a rape because statistically the idea that anyone will be raped in a dark alley by an unknown assailant is absurdly low (I think it was less than 9% of rapes occur in this condition where the total number of rapes is only around 81k in a population density of 313 million people.) Most rapes occur in the same fashions that most murders occur, by someone known to the vicitim.

This is fun! Your turn!

A. Most homicides are Manslaughters (Murder under the influence of drugs or alcohol), usually vehicular manslaughter, but yea. Very few murders are premeditated, and often times those that are involve alcohol consumption. It's hard to plan to kill someone, drugs/alchol make it easier. People who murder don't think clearly. This is what it's like in Canada, in USA it could be different, I never took US law, just Canadian.

B. Exactly, so why not ban hand guns? What purpose do they serve when owners such as yourself don't even carry one? Isn't a rifle for the house/car good enough? Don't you find it f***ed that people go grocery shopping packing a weapon? Is it not safe anywhere in the southern USA? I think it's safe to go to Walmart without a pistol, and I think a home rifle for protection is good enough even though statistic Canada says that you're 3 times more likely to be shot if you have a weapon at home for "protection."

C. I guess things are different in Canada, I often head Americans critisize the effectiveness of their police force. I would just imagine that gangsters on corners selling crack would be more easily identifyable when they have a rifle down their pants (not an assault rifle, just the regular bolt action/semi-automatic rifles which are legal in USA). Also if criminals do rob a bank and police are chasing them, can you run with a rifle down your pants? Also crimes in more congested cities would be harder, it's kinda hard to miss someone walking into a store with a rifle vs. a handgun.

D. I wouldn't say I'm limited to large parts of the USA. I have a ton of family in New York, and I vist annually. I've travelled all over USA, down the west coast and east coast, to Texas, Denver, Nevada, Michigan, etc. When I went to Texas and saw people carry guns around, I really just did not want to be outside. Especially because many of the people carrying guns were those traditional rednecks, who I just don't trust.

Things are different in the USA, you guys are much more desensitized to guns. After 911 I was visiting Manhattan and I saw several police with semi-automatic carbine rifles. I was intinimated by the police and actually stopped walking down the street when passing one. I did not feel comfortable with that. Surprisinly, in Africa, I was pretty comfortable with the military (they watch tourist attractions) holding AK's.

E. How does that drug cartel get a gun if they are banned? In Canada, regular folk don't carry guns, it's all the gangstas. It's not a liberty being taken away, and I completly disagree with you on crime rates going up with hand guns being banned. Automatic rifles are banned in the USA, as are Rocket Launchers, is that a liberty taken away from you?

Freedom should have restrictions for the benefit of everyone else. This is why Opium based drugs are illegal, they are addictive and detremental to society. This is why automatic rifles are banned, you don't need to protect yourself from any small army's. This is why Speeding gives you a ticket, and excessive speeding is criminal (In Canada), to protect other motorists. Banning handguns is just a precaution, it just means gangstas and cartels can't just shoot you on the street. If they want to kill you, they will need to put more effort with a knife or a rifle.

E-1. "Most of us are very weary of our government and do not want them interfering in our personal buisness or telling us how to conduct ourselves" - Why? Why is this a bad thing? Why do Americans oppose rules and regulations so much? Why are police task forces designed to fight the war on drugs so ineffective there then they are here?

This is why I like Canada. Our Criminal code is federal, not state. It's actually effective here, not a joke. Plus people here respect our laws and constitutions because they are fair. Each state in the US is so different from one another, it's like California is a different country. Nobosy has any respect for the law in USA, not even politicians, and this is a fundamental problem in the USA.

F. Gangs using automatic rifles and cops running and hiding is just an example of how ineffective your police are. Here, first of all we don't see large scale gang stootings. Maybe 10 individuals total, all using pistols. When this happens we get about 100 cops on the scene. The number of police always drastically outnumbers the number of criminals. As a result people actually respect the police here.

As for rapes, yup, often times rapes are done in a house. There is something called the pants test, were if a girls pants are inside out, chances are sex was done by force, but if they are folded nicely or just on the floor, but outside out, then it wasn't done by force. Just one  indicator out of many. Still, will a gun help you when your being raped indoors? What if the bullet goes through the wall and kills a neighbour. Mace is just as effective in close range as a gun, and in reality a taser gun is just as efficient too. Have you ever been zapped by a taser? My frind bought one and I tried it out, it will mess you up, more effectively then a knife.

I like you, you don't claim to know everything and are fun to debate with. The thing is, it is a different culture, guns are really "oh my gosh, he's got a gun" here. Regardless if that person is carrying it or using it, people are just not desensitized to guns here, and automatic rifles just don't exist here. Plus homicide rates are much more affected by culture, psychological disorders, social stress, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.

I just see no reason at all why handguns are illegal.

Take a look from my perspective. only 15% of people in Ontario own a gun, just 3% own a hand gun. Most people who own a gun use if for hunting. What does a handgun do? People don't carry guns for protection. Even things like mace isn't too common around here. Police are effective, and usually bystanders will help out somone in trouble. There is no reason to own a gun. People in Canada just don't have that need for "protection" it's just safe here. Sure we have some bad neighbourhoods, but vulnerable people just don't go to those at night, simple as that, and it's very uncommon to see an act of violence done to a stranger. Stores and people who get robbed, just hand over the cash and usually nothing bad happens, and homicide victims are almost never random. Serial killers are made up, or fictional here, and just we don't need guns. So why not ban them? They serve no purpose. People don't use guns for "protection" here, that idea is just shocking and adsurd, and rifles work fine for hunting.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Michael-5 said:
sc94597 said:
Michael-5 said:
sc94597 said:
 

In that case, Toronto is yours to do with how you wish and my land how I (and my fellow people) wish.  In the United States a handgun ban would devastate the elderly (who can't hold rifles or shotgun for whichever reason) and the weak (who would be harmed by the recoil.)  These are the most vulnerable people to criminals. Furthermore, concealed carry deters criminals. Hence, I would not support any type of gun prohibition in Pennsylvania, as there is no significant data that verifies a correlation between homicides and gun prohibition for all contexts. Nicely, my state legislators and representatives agree, as do the majority of fellow Pennsylvanians. As for gun control, as long as it's reasonable and effective, it's welcomed otherwise why waste one's time, tax dollars, and privacy on it? 


Second, a rifle is not the only method of defence for the old and weak, taser guns are just as effective, lighter, non lethal, and have less recoil.

Also, your last sentence agrees with me. If gun control is reasonale and effective (Ban handguns, guns most often used to kill, not all guns) then this is reasonable and effective.

Finally, damn you guys need to teach each other morals. It's not okay to hurt or steal. Old people shouldn't have to carry a gun around for "protection." That's just sad if you ask me. Pennsylvania is just across Lake Erie from us, why are homicide rates so high?

@ second Seriously? In a country with over 300 million guns, many of which are already on the black market and in the event of prohibition will be on the black market, you'll use a taser on a guy? Especially when it has happened that tasers can be non-effective against bigger individuals?

@ "last sentence agrees with me" Prohibition is not reasonable and will LEAD to crime. It happened in the 20's, with alcohol, it is happening now with the "war on drugs" it will happen with guns. 

@ I'm sorry, but if you subtract Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has a homicide rate of 1.8 (half of Toronto's), and a much lower criminalization rate. My county, which is below-income, has a homicide rate of .8 (a fourth of toronto's) albeit a high drug crime rate. Most people own weapons. Please don't talk about what you don't know, and certainly morals aren't being taught in most places of the world, particularly urban areas. Old people should carry guns, because they have been using them since they were five years old. They're comfortable with guns and they know how to use them for self-defense. Guns have saved the lifes of hundreds of elderly and weak in this year alone.  

Second - Um.. Yes. Wow really, you'd rather blow someones head off then knock them out? Different world Southern USA then Canada. Maybe people here are smaller? lol

@Ban - Guns aren't something people want for leisure time. Like you said, you own two guns, but never used them before. You probably brought them to a shooting range a few times, but how often you you use them? People consume alcohol as if it were a part of their lives. People drink to be happy, just like others watch TV, or play sports. I'm 100% fine with having guns at a shooting range for recreational use, but you don't use it in every day culture like you do alcohol.

Banning guns would not have the same effect as prohibition, and the war on drugs isn't as much of an issue here in Canada as it is the USA, people are taught in schools why drugs are bad, people are taught better morals here.

As for Homicides rates, the numbers your wuoting are a complete lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto ; http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/pacrime.htm

Toronto's homicide rate is 3.3/100,000. Pennsylvania is 5/100,000 (Not 1.8). Other US cities, not far from Toronto have significantly higher homicide rates (Detroit is 33.8/100,000 for example).

Old people should carry gun...wow, things are different in the USA.

Also for the tenth time I didn't say handguns are the only, or prime reason why homicide rates are high. I just said that banning them would probably reduce them and there really is no reason why anyone should carry a portable man killer like that. You can't kill people when they are stealing from you, it may be self defence, but it's still murder. This is an example of how morals are not being taught where you're located.

We also did agree, most of the reasons are probably psychological, social, racial, etc. However Psychological issues among individuals are random genetic mutations, no one country will have more psycho's then others, and Toronto is probably more multiculteral then most cities in North America. So why are homicide rates here so much lower? We have better institutions to identify and help those with mental illnesses and addiction, better morals (you don't kill people unless your own life is in danger), better drug control, higher restrictions on alcohol use (nothing above 40% is sold in Ontario), etc, etc.

All I'm arguing is there is no reason to have handguns illegal, and I'm shocked that anyone is questioning that. Target practice? Really? That was one of your first reasons for owning a gun, along with "because I can." That's just being ignorant.


I don't own any guns, yet. Where did you get the idea that I own two guns from? And if you subtract Philadelphia (which has a homocide rate of 20) the rest of Pennsylvania is 1.8. Why should I worry about a high homicide rate that Philadelphia has when the area I live in has people die in the single digits from guns per year?



sc94597 said:
Michael-5 said:

Second - Um.. Yes. Wow really, you'd rather blow someones head off then knock them out? Different world Southern USA then Canada. Maybe people here are smaller? lol

@Ban - Guns aren't something people want for leisure time. Like you said, you own two guns, but never used them before. You probably brought them to a shooting range a few times, but how often you you use them? People consume alcohol as if it were a part of their lives. People drink to be happy, just like others watch TV, or play sports. I'm 100% fine with having guns at a shooting range for recreational use, but you don't use it in every day culture like you do alcohol.

Banning guns would not have the same effect as prohibition, and the war on drugs isn't as much of an issue here in Canada as it is the USA, people are taught in schools why drugs are bad, people are taught better morals here.

As for Homicides rates, the numbers your wuoting are a complete lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto ; http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/pacrime.htm

Toronto's homicide rate is 3.3/100,000. Pennsylvania is 5/100,000 (Not 1.8). Other US cities, not far from Toronto have significantly higher homicide rates (Detroit is 33.8/100,000 for example).

Old people should carry gun...wow, things are different in the USA.

Also for the tenth time I didn't say handguns are the only, or prime reason why homicide rates are high. I just said that banning them would probably reduce them and there really is no reason why anyone should carry a portable man killer like that. You can't kill people when they are stealing from you, it may be self defence, but it's still murder. This is an example of how morals are not being taught where you're located.

We also did agree, most of the reasons are probably psychological, social, racial, etc. However Psychological issues among individuals are random genetic mutations, no one country will have more psycho's then others, and Toronto is probably more multiculteral then most cities in North America. So why are homicide rates here so much lower? We have better institutions to identify and help those with mental illnesses and addiction, better morals (you don't kill people unless your own life is in danger), better drug control, higher restrictions on alcohol use (nothing above 40% is sold in Ontario), etc, etc.

All I'm arguing is there is no reason to have handguns illegal, and I'm shocked that anyone is questioning that. Target practice? Really? That was one of your first reasons for owning a gun, along with "because I can." That's just being ignorant.


I don't own any guns, yet. Where did you get the idea that I own two guns from? And if you subtract Philadelphia (which has a homocide rate of 20) the rest of Pennsylvania is 1.8. Why should I worry about a high homicide rate that Philadelphia has when the area I live in has people die in the single digits from guns per year?

I mixed you up with somone else. 3 people are debating me at once, I am shocked at how much pro-gun some Americans can be. I see no reason why handguns should be legal. If you need protection from others with handguns, that's more reason to ban it. If Police are inefficient in the southern states, then that should obviously be fixed first, but wow.

As for you logic on Pennsylvania, if I subtract Toronto from Ontario I bet the homicide rate of Ontario will drop. You're comparing a state to a city, and that's not fair because cities are the places which have high homicide rates.

Ontario's Homicide rate, including Toronto which accounts for most of the provinces population is 1.5/100,000, which is lower then Pennsylvania which is 5. Subtract Toronto from Ontario (1/6th the population of the province) and Ontario's homicide rate drops to 0.95, or just over half of Pennsylvanis's homicide rate excluding Philidelphia.

Half is a big difference, and that's being baised. The true difference is that Pennsylvania has 3.3x as many homicides as Ontario.

Also you're wrong again. It's not single digit deaths in your state. 5 people die every year out of 100,000. Pennsylvania is 12 million people large. This means that 600 people a year are killed in your state. That's tripple digit. Ontario is less a third of that, and in Toronto itself has a homicide rate a 6th as small as Philidelphia.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results