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

Forums - General - Guns Dont Make You Safer?

Sqrl on 02 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
So let me get this right... if guns don't make you safer, you're saying that we can take all the guns away from cops, and they can do there job equally effective with no additional risk to there safety?

Is that so? Policemen don't need guns to do their job effectively. Now let's do a case study, USA arms their police with guns and allow open ownership of guns and Britain does not. Source

USA has the 24th highest murder rate in the world with 0.042802 murders per 1000, where as Britain has the 46th highest murder rate with 0.0140633 per 1000. That is a large disparity, the country who do not arm their police with guns and do not allow guns to be owned as easily have a four times lower murder rate. What does that tell you about gun crime?

Uhm...it doesn't tell us anything about gun crime...like at all....

Not trying to be rude but what it does tell us is that you don't really understand statistics.

Murder rates are influenced by a myriad of factors.  And while gun availability is certainly among those factors you cannot simply choose to ignore the all other factors just to make your point.  Not even to say simply that A "influences" B in a negative/positive way.  The information needs to be examined in its full context or not at all.

But even then, if we assume for a second that gun availability is an extremely dominant super-factor and overwhelms the remaining factors...yes even then correlation would not neccessitate causation implicitly, you actually have to go beyond the correlation to an analysis of the information if you want to make that assertion statistically.

Put simply, you cannot use a murder rate statistic to make assertions about the impact of guns on crimes.  You need an in-depth study on crimes involving guns that examines both their positive value as detterence (among other factors), as well as their negative value as antagonistic tools (among other factors).

The point you're trying to make here is pure and simple statistical nonsense.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
Sqrl on 02 October 2009
Rath said:
The debate doesn't only concern the amount of crime though, it also concerns the outcome of that crime.

I'd rather have ten robberies where nobody dies than one where somebody does.

 

I'd rather have ten dead robbers.  That is ten less people who get robbed next week...and the week after...and if we're lucky maybe another 3 or 4 rethink their profression and we can reduce the total by 13 or 14.

Robbers implicitly threaten a person's safety in order to take their possessions for profit.  Your position, while motivated by a well-intended desire to save lives, makes their job easier and reinforces the problem. 

I would much rather have ten dead criminals and a strong negative reinforcement mechanism than ten criminals who happily profited from their easy marks and a strong positive reinforcement mechanism.
To Each Man, Responsibility
highwaystar101 on 02 October 2009

Ok, ok, maybe I used a bad statistic there. But I will try to justify my point with further statistics.

 

In the USA 65% of homicides are committed using firearms (Source and source) That's 2.97 people per 100,000 killed with guns out of 4.55 killed per 100,000.

Now let's compare this to other developed countries with stricter gun control.

 

USA - 65% of homocides committed with firearms - 4.55 killed per 100,000 - (keep in mind the 39% gun ownership)

 

Britain - 8% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.45 people general homocides per 100,000 pop. 

New Zealand - 13% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.36 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

Australia - 16% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.57 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

Spain - 16% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.5 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

Finland - 19% of homocides committed with firearms - 2.19 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

Ireland - 24% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.33 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

 

 

Source

Now I know it's the UN who conducted this study and you guys will have a problem with the "anti-American leftys" and the fact that the study is 8 years old, but the age shouldn't matter, instinct is instinct, it was the newest reliable study out there and pretty much all of them say the same ting anyway. But there is a correlation here like it or not. The countries with less homocides using firearms has a lower murder rate overall.

 

Look guns are just a convenient disembodied way to kill someone. It's very easy to pull a trigger and kill someone, it's another thing to tackle them and stab them a dozen time to kill someone, that's the difference IMO.



Zlejedi on 02 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Zlejedi said:
highwaystar101 said:
mrstickball said:
Rath - what if the 1 that dies is the robber?

So killing someone for robbing is justified? How lovely...


  Of course it is justified. You defend yourself against criminal after all.

So how does me murdering someone, an even greater crime than robbery, somehow make me in the right? Is it justified that I should be allowed to murder someone?

I live in Britain, we don't have guns here, if I want to stop a robber then I call the police or tackle them myself. We do fine, in fact we have a lower murder rate.

You are not murdering anyone you are self-defending.

 



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Kasz216 on 02 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:

Ok, ok, maybe I used a bad statistic there. But I will try to justify my point with further statistics.

 

In the USA 65% of homicides are committed using firearms (Source and source) That's 2.97 people per 100,000 killed with guns out of 4.55 killed per 100,000.

Now let's compare this to other developed countries with stricter gun control.

 

USA - 65% of homocides committed with firearms - 4.55 killed per 100,000 - (keep in mind the 39% gun ownership)

 

Britain - 8% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.45 people general homocides per 100,000 pop. 

New Zealand - 13% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.36 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

Australia - 16% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.57 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

Spain - 16% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.5 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

Finland - 19% of homocides committed with firearms - 2.19 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

Ireland - 24% of homocides committed with firearms - 1.33 people general homocides per 100,000 pop.

 

 

Source

Now I know it's the UN who conducted this study and you guys will have a problem with the "anti-American leftys" and the fact that the study is 8 years old, but the age shouldn't matter, instinct is instinct, it was the newest reliable study out there and pretty much all of them say the same ting anyway. But there is a correlation here like it or not. The countries with less homocides using firearms has a lower murder rate overall.

 

Look guns are just a convenient disembodied way to kill someone. It's very easy to pull a trigger and kill someone, it's another thing to tackle them and stab them a dozen time to kill someone, that's the difference IMO.

No... that's still bad statistic that doesn't tell you anything.

Also your cherry picking your countries... which is even funnier.

Israel and Switzerland for example have low murder rates.


Now when you look in the US.  Like within the country, rather then comparing different countries for no reason... you'd see there is no correlation within the united states between areas with high gun ownership, and murder rates.

The same is true in regards to gun legislation and murder rates.

No correlation within the country.  Which is a much most statistically accurate model then the one you are using.  When you compare gun ownership and murder rates... within the country.  It doesn't correlate.

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/26466731?limit_modifier=all&graph[limit]=51&commit=%3E

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2008#MRord

Much more credible then using countries like England... who didn't even have that many violent crimes before gun legislation.

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 02 October 2009

In graph form the states thing looks like this.

 


Hell if it wasn't so spread out if anything the numbers would point to it reducing crime.

Either way.  Within population is much more accurate then the kind of stats your trying to use Highway.

 



highwaystar101 on 02 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
 

No... that's still bad statistic that doesn't tell you anything.

Also your cherry picking your countries... which is even funnier.

Israel and Switzerland for example have low murder rates.


Now when you look in the US. Like within the country, rather then comparing different countries for no reason... you'd see there is no correlation within the united states between areas with high gun ownership, and murder rates.

The same is true in regards to gun legislation and murder rates.

No correlation within the country. Which is a much most statistically accurate model then the one you are using. When you compare gun ownership and murder rates... within the country. It doesn't correlate.

 

 

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/26466731?limit_modifier=all&graph[limit]=51&commit=%3E http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2008#MRord


Haha, I knew you were going to post a response like this, I could have pretty much said it word for word. You are getting FAR too predictable Kasz nowadays.
I only put a few choice countries as it looked really messy. Now let's not give a shit about messyness and post the study again but "uncherrypicked"...

Country   % homicides with firearms   Firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.  		 Non-firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.  		 Overall homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.  
Colombia 85 51.8 10.9 62.7
Guatemala 75 6.97 25.5 25.47
United States[24] 65 2.97 1.58 4.55
Costa Rica[24] 51 3.38 3.19 6.57
Slovakia 45 2.17 2.65 4.81
Barbados 40 3.00 4.49 7.49
Germany 40 0.47 0.70 1.17
Zimbabwe 40 4.75 7.24 12
Paraguay 38 7.4 12 19.4
Switzerland 37 0.56 0.96 1.52
Macedonia FYR 36 1.28 2.31 3.59
Uruguay 35 2.52 4.61 7.13
Canada[24] 34 0.54 1.04 1.58
Belarus 33 3.31 6.82 10.13
India[24] 25 0.93 2.04 2.97
Portugal 25 0.85 2.45 3.31
Qatar[24] 25 0.18 0.53 0.71
Slovenia 25 0.6 1.81 2.41
Denmark 24 0.26 0.83 1.09
Ireland[24] 24 0.32 1.01 1.33
Hungary 21 0.44 1.61 2.05
Mexico 21 3.7 14.1 17.8
Bulgaria 19 0.77 3.3 4.07
Finland[25] 19 0.43 1.94 2.19
Lithuania 18 2.24 10 12.3
Australia 16 0.31 1.26 1.57
Spain 16 0.25 1.25 1.5
Estonia 13 1.53 8.92 10.45
New Zealand 13 0.18 1.17 1.36
Chile 11 0.18 1.37 1.55
Latvia 11 1.3 10 11.3
Azerbaijan 8 0.22 2.59 2.81
England & Wales[24] 8 0.12 1.33 1.45
Poland 7 0.43 5.61 6.04
Moldova, Republic of 5 0.47 8.13 8.59
Ukraine 4 0.35 8.93 9.27
Singapore 3 0.03 0.92 0.95





The USA still have the third highest percentage of homicides commited with a gun in this perticular study, right up there with the epitome of nations who have good gun control such as Guatemala and Columbia.

So why are 65% of homocides in USA committed with firearms? Is this a good thing that America has such a high percentage?



Kasz216 on 02 October 2009

Once again.

 

Gun ownership clearly isn't the cause.

This is still a far more accurate portrayl then the picture you are trying to paint.

I mean your in graduate school right?  If it has anything to do with science it should be obvious that my stats are more valid here.

Inner population has far less confounding variables.

You have taken statistics right? 

US murder rates are largely culturally based.  I'd suggest reading the book "Outliers".  They have a nice chapter on it.

I mean Switzerlands murder rate about = UK but they have way more liberal gun laws then the US. 



highwaystar101 on 02 October 2009
Kasz216 said:

Once again.

 

Gun ownership clearly isn't the cause.

This is still a far more accurate portrayl then the picture you are trying to paint.

I mean your in graduate school right?  If it has anything to do with science it should be obvious that my stats are more valid here.

Inner population has far less confounding variables.

You have taken statistics right?

 

I mean Switzerlands murder rate about = UK but they have way more liberal gun laws then the US. 

You have to be fucking kidding me right? You are just going to sit there and offend me like that. I'm doing a masters degree and you when you use the wrong use of You're!!! See I can pick out things and call you an idiot based on them too, but I don't.

Insulting intelligence is the lowest of the low Kasz.

 

Hey look at this study I found. It proves my initial point... Hey look at USA all the way up there.

Oh, and by the way, I checked the source of the image you gave, it just comes from a BS blog. The source I give for this is reliable... If it has anything to do with science it should be obvious that my stats are more valid here.

 

Jeez, you pushed so many buttons in one post



Kasz216 on 02 October 2009

I know you're doing a Masters Degree. That's why I can't understand why your being so dense about something so simple.

To put it more simply. Which do you think is more accurate. A study about healthy eating vs how much TV you watch that compares me and my neighbor.

Or a study about healthy eating vs how much TV you watch that compares me and Joe from Samoa.

Clearly my neighbor and I have many more things in common then I do with Joe from Samoa. Meaning far less confounding variables.

There in my study is far more reliable then yours.  As someone going for a masters degree you should be able to recognize this fact assuming your masters degree involves statistics.  (don't know what your going for.)

To do otherwise would just be intellectually dishonest.