School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Ullan (Ancient)]

(snip)
Numbers. How the fuck do they work.

Assuming the goal of reduced gun ownership is to prevent homicides, merely looking at gun crime is insufficient. You need to look at the overall violent crime rate.

Wikipedia provides a handy list of countries by 'intentional homicide' taken directly from the UNODC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

This gives the United States a rate of 4.2 murders per 100k people in the last year, placing the UK at 1.2. Still rather lower, of course, but not quite as staggering a difference. Further, Austria has a rate of .6, and has much more lax gun laws than the UK.

lol. Thank you for answering. I need to endorse you sir!

[AiliailiA]

Let's look at the actual numbers, shall we.

Well, firstly we have the category: % of Homicides by Firearms.

Let's take a gander at the US. Oh, what's this? 60%.

And now England and Wales? 6.6%.

Well, England is winning this competition pretty handily now.

But, what's this you say, there are other categories? Well, then, we shall investigate!

Number of Homicides by firearm:
US - 9,146.
England and Wales - 41.

Wow check that out.

But population numbers are important, you say?

Alrighty then.

Homicides per firearm rate per 100,000 population.
US - 2.97.
England and Wales - 0.07.

Not looking so hot for the US, is it? Alright, we'll give another category a shot.

Rank of (homicide) rate by ownership.
US- 1.
England and Wales - 88.

Numbers. How the fuck do they work.

Sweetie, don't inject numbers
" But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people"

From the UK Guardian. They have a better record than you do for telling the truth.

We are number one in the world for gun ownership....read some of the article. 88 of 100 households own guns.

Bull. It's under 40% ... I can't even be bothered looking it up, it's NOTHING LIKE 88%

Further, you're 6.6 number is the percentage of murders commited using a gun.

So we gather from the evidence that evidently Guns are not a problem in England. Another kind of weapon is used. lol. Which means their gun regulation doesn't save.
93.4 of the 734 people murdered in 2007.

A much lower homicide rate than the US has. Serious assaults ... the kind of situation where people would use a gun if they had one ... are more equal between UK and US.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

How? It didn't impact the 6.6 percent of people who died relating to guns.

Yes, and as I've stated multiple times now, the point of gun control isn't to magically eliminate all crime ever - it's to minimise gun crime, which is far more deadly than any other common type of violent crime.

lol

ROFLMAO!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude.... you do realize homicide is the most deadly crime. Right? Not just gun related crime. For example....a robbery with a gun is not more deadly than a homicide with a knife. lol.

[Emile Zola]

So Chicago is bad at enforcement is the argument?

Gun control is supposed to control gun related crime. Yet its still high.

2.9% change. And you call that significant?

Honduras is 68.43% to our 2.97%.......That's significant.....Mexico is higher than the USA as well.

I asked you how they are related? Either show me or find another tangent to obfuscate on.

You haven't refuted the fact that the UK has significantly less deaths then the US due to their gun laws and culture regarding guns. So what is 2.9% about?

Thus is the list of countries with more gun violence then the US. El Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Swaziland, Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Mexico, Philippines and South Africa. Again what is your point? That the US is doing better then 3rd world countries with endemic poverty, corruption and crime. Way to go...

[Ullan (Ancient)]

Sweetie, don't inject numbers
" But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people"

From the UK Guardian. They have a better record than you do for telling the truth.

We are number one in the world for gun ownership....read some of the article. 88 of 100 households own guns.

Bull. It's under 40% ... I can't even be bothered looking it up, it's NOTHING LIKE 88%

Further, you're 6.6 number is the percentage of murders commited using a gun.

So we gather from the evidence that evidently Guns are not a problem in England. Another kind of weapon is used. lol. Which means their gun regulation doesn't save.
93.4 of the 734 people murdered in 2007.

A much lower homicide rate than the US has. Serious assaults ... the kind of situation where people would use a gun if they had one ... are more equal between UK and US.

Bull? I'm just restating what they reported...." The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people"

Are you saying that the media is lying!!?!?! lol

the homicide rates are quite easily found 2.97 precent versus 0.07. yeah, that's not much lower..... unless 2 is a big number now. lol.

[Tubbsalot]

Dude.... you do realize homicide is the most deadly crime. Right?

"The most deadly type of crime is that committed with a gun (as opposed to that committed by a knife or other weapon)."
"guuuhhhh noo the most deadly crime is KILLING whuuuh how do words work"

Not just gun related crime. For example....a robbery with a gun is not more deadly than a homicide with a knife.

You don't say. However, robbery with a gun is generally a lot more deadly than a robbery with a knife. A point which would be transparently obvious to you if you'd put even the slightest effort into reading.

lol.

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[AiliailiA]

Yes, and as I've stated multiple times now, the point of gun control isn't to magically eliminate all crime ever - it's to minimise gun crime, which is far more deadly than any other common type of violent crime.


ROFLMAO!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude.... you do realize homicide is the most deadly crime. Right? Not just gun related crime. For example....a robbery with a gun is not more deadly than a homicide with a knife. lol.

I don't know what you find amusing about this. Laughing at yourself perhaps?

[Gauntleted Fist]

Assuming the goal of reduced gun ownership is to prevent homicides, merely looking at gun crime is insufficient. You need to look at the overall violent crime rate.

Wikipedia provides a handy list of countries by 'intentional homicide' taken directly from the UNODC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

This gives the United States a rate of 4.2 murders per 100k people in the last year, placing the UK at 1.2. Still rather lower, of course, but not quite as staggering a difference. Further, Austria has a rate of .6, and has much more lax gun laws than the UK.

I need to do no such thing whatsoever. Because that is not the argument I am making. Nice try, though.

[Camicon]

I'm going to trust Statistics Canada over The Guardian, even if their numbers are from six years ago.

And, if you'd read your Guardian article, then you'd realize their numbers only further support my position.

Yeah, you definitely didn't read that. lol.

And you're trust is based in something a year before mine. I understand your position though. lol.

Einstein had a good answer for this. lol. "Insanity is the doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result." lol.

lol. Einstein was dead on. lol. The USA has been (lol) resisting increased firearm regulations (lol) for decades (lol) and contrary to the position of those who support decreased regulation (lol) the per capita rate of firearm homicide has not (lol) gone down. lol.

Oh, and did I forget to mention? lol.

[Empire of Demonia]

I don't know man, people are going crazy and shooting for no apparent reason. These kids were just enjoying their school life, enjoying talking to their friends, when suddenly, BAM. Gunshots were heard and the next thing you know, there's a kid dead kid on the floor. The shooter had a mom that's a teacher, and for some weird, abnormal reason, he shot her dead with out hesitation. My country needs to have more security... I swear, next thing I notice is that I'll be in my high school's cafeteria, bleeding out and waiting for death.

I honestly dont think it will come to that high schools are quite a bit more secere than elamentary and middle schools at least mine was, althoe the bastard that did this atrosaty was a fucking lunatick whos mouther shold have had put in an asylam so none of this wold of hapend. Or at the very least had her gun in a more secure location.

[Tubbsalot]

lol. Einstein was dead on. lol. The USA has been (lol) resisting increased firearm regulations (lol) for decades (lol) and contrary to the position of those who support decreased regulation (lol) the per capita rate of firearm homicide has not (lol) gone down. lol.

Oh, and did I forget to mention? lol.

rofl!

[Ullan (Ancient)]

So Chicago is bad at enforcement is the argument?

Gun control is supposed to control gun related crime. Yet its still high.

2.9% change. And you call that significant?

Honduras is 68.43% to our 2.97%.......That's significant.....Mexico is higher than the USA as well.

I asked you how they are related? Either show me or find another tangent to obfuscate on.

You haven't refuted the fact that the UK has significantly less deaths then the US due to their gun laws and culture regarding guns. So what is 2.9% about?

Thus is the list of countries with more gun violence then the US. El Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Swaziland, Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Mexico, Philippines and South Africa. Again what is your point? That the US is doing better then 3rd world countries with endemic poverty, corruption and crime. Way to go...

You're point is that England has a better handle on their crime. I have posted the link more than 2 times. It states that 2.97 is the homicide rate for the United States.

England has a 0.07 percent homicide rate with guns btw. which means that you subtract england's number from our number giving you 2.9 percent for the rate difference. That is the "significant number.

The UK has not significantly done anything. Unless you would like to explain to the world how 2 percent is a huge or significant difference.

That alone is the refutation. The facts of homicide rates are there for you to use with your own calculator if you actually need one. lol.

[Gauntleted Fist]

the homicide rates are quite easily found 2.97 precent versus 0.07. yeah, that's not much lower..... unless 2 is a big number now. lol.

No, this is not how the numbers you are quoting works. Those are not percents. Those are the real number of homicides per 100,000 people. As in literally only 0.07 people are killed in England and Wales by guns per 100,000 people.

It is exactly the same for the US. 2.97 people are killed with guns for every 100,000 people.

[Occupied Deutschland]

This gets said every time and I don't buy it for a second. If not now, when? When are we supposed to have that discussion if not when its relevant, if not when the effects can be seen so clearly? Why is it so forbidden to discuss the ramifications of a thing when they are current? The things you're trying to compare are not equal.

So it's okay for gun-control advocates to say their piece when there's a tragedy like this, but when someone takes the other side it's clearly a disservice to the dead?

That's relying on an emotional response to a tragedy to score political points. Which is a tactic used by the pro-gun side just as often.

The two actions are very equal. Gun-control only comes up after tragedies like this because it's the only time the arguments get any air-time because people feel sorry for the victims enough to consider bold action. After some time, their popularity decreases. It's a tactic just as much as the NRAs 'From my cold dead hands!' is a tactic.

And it's something I explicitly said in the first post you quoted, so clearly that's not at all what I'm saying.

Then I misread what you were saying when you claimed people stopping other people with guns was somehow them stopping the problem they created.

Yes, guns are tools that can be handled by good people and bad people just as any other tool can be. Nobody is arguing that. I'm not sure what you're bringing up by pointing out that fact.

And it's worthwhile to have a discussion about that, and what our responsibilities are, including how we regard them.

What exactly is to discuss? That the nuts who use guns irresponsibly are BAD MEN and are just so BAD that we should mention how BAD they are VERY LOUDLY?

I don't see people (at least not in the gun-control crowd) pointing to these cases as examples of irresponsible ownership, I see them pointing to these cases as representations of what people with these bad guns do.

How we regard guns certainly could use discussion. Unfortunately, like the responsibilities argument, this only seems to be used in the context of 'too many regard guns as good when they are clearly BAD. Look at the recent ____ massacre!' instead of a calmer discussion about how stupid uses are emphasized by our media and people have very inaccurate ideas about what makes guns dangerous or unsafe (the hysteria that comes from plastic-stocked "assault rifles" for instance)

And that's the discussion we need to have.

On that we can agree.

[Gauntleted Fist]

That alone is the refutation. The facts of homicide rates are there for you to use with your own calculator if you actually need one. lol.

And now we have a lesson on finding percentages with a calculator easily.

0.07 of 100,000 is not 0.07%. It is 0.0000007% per 100,000 people.

For the US it would be 0.0000297% per 100,000 people.

[AiliailiA]

Bull. It's under 40% ... I can't even be bothered looking it up, it's NOTHING LIKE 88%



A much lower homicide rate than the US has. Serious assaults ... the kind of situation where people would use a gun if they had one ... are more equal between UK and US.

Bull? I'm just restating what they reported...." The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people"

Are you saying that the media is lying!!?!?! lol

No, I'm saying 88 guns per hundred people DOES NOT MEAN that 88 of each 100 people has a gun. NOR that 88 out of 100 households has a gun.

By households it's under 40% ... perhaps well under that ... and in practice that just means that ONE OR MORE people in that household owns a gun. The rate for individual ownership is necessarily lower than for households to have a gun in them.

The high figure for total weapons is because gun owners often own more than one gun. You should know this if you're a gun rights advocate.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

Yeah, you definitely didn't read that. lol.

And you're trust is based in something a year before mine. I understand your position though. lol.

Einstein had a good answer for this. lol. "Insanity is the doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result." lol.

lol. Einstein was dead on. lol. The USA has been (lol) resisting increased firearm regulations (lol) for decades (lol) and contrary to the position of those who support decreased regulation (lol) the per capita rate of firearm homicide has not (lol) gone down. lol.

Oh, and did I forget to mention? lol.

Actually only an ignorant person would say that. lol. 1990 was just 2 decades ago. it gave us gun free zones.

And here's an interesting article about all the lovely bills and laws recently passed since that date.
http//topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html

And you're right, firearm homicide hasn't gone done even though we passed laws! lol.
http//www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

[Tubbsalot]

Actually only an ignorant person would say that. lol. 1990 was just 2 decades ago. it gave us gun free zones.

Have you seen anyone in this thread argue for "gun-free zones"? The way it's implemented in America is ludicrously stupid, and that's irrelevant to gun control in general.

[Camicon]

lol. Einstein was dead on. lol. The USA has been (lol) resisting increased firearm regulations (lol) for decades (lol) and contrary to the position of those who support decreased regulation (lol) the per capita rate of firearm homicide has not (lol) gone down. lol.

Oh, and did I forget to mention? lol.

Actually only an ignorant person would say that. lol. 1990 was just 2 decades ago. it gave us gun free zones.

And here's an interesting article about all the lovely bills and laws recently passed since that date.
http//topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html

And you're right, firearm homicide hasn't gone done even though we passed laws! lol.
http//www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

lol. Fucking done here. lol. Going to go to bed and try not to think of the twenty little children who might be alive if some Americans were such goddamned zealots when it came to the 2nd Amendment. lol. Tubbsalot, I trust you can carry my torch for me.

lol.

[AiliailiA]

England has a 0.07 percent homicide rate with guns btw. which means that you subtract england's number from our number giving you 2.9 percent for the rate difference. That is the "significant number.

Wow NO. One of those numbers is 42 times bigger than the other. You don't subtract to compare them ...

[Gauntleted Fist]

lol. Fucking done here. lol. Going to go to bed and try not to think of the twenty little children who might be alive if some Americans were such goddamned zealots when it came to the 2nd Amendment. lol. Tubbsalot, I trust you can carry my torch for me.

lol.

Yeah, I think I'm done here for the night, too. This post just about made me laugh hard enough to wake up my roommate. Definitely time for bed.

...

What?

...

lol.

(Oh, misread the time. Still have a little while left.)

[Emile Zola]

You're point is that England has a better handle on their crime. I have posted the link more than 2 times. It states that 2.97 is the homicide rate for the United States.

England has a 0.07 percent homicide rate with guns btw. which means that you subtract england's number from our number giving you 2.9 percent for the rate difference. That is the "significant number.

The UK has not significantly done anything. Unless you would like to explain to the world how 2 percent is a huge or significant difference.

That alone is the refutation. The facts of homicide rates are there for you to use with your own calculator if you actually need one. lol.

The statistics based are on per 100,000 people. So 2 is a huge difference. You are comparing between a country with 310 million versus 60 million. That adds up to thousands of deaths against a hundred or so. The UK is doing much better then the US in keeping their citizens alive. Don't tell me that you just looked at the stats and went, "it's just 2%?" lol...

[Tubbsalot]

Tubbsalot, I trust you can carry my torch for me.

lol, i've already spent like 10 hours arguing about this sadface, rofl

[Ullan (Ancient)]

Bull? I'm just restating what they reported...." The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people"

Are you saying that the media is lying!!?!?! lol

No, I'm saying 88 guns per hundred people DOES NOT MEAN that 88 of each 100 people has a gun. NOR that 88 out of 100 households has a gun.

By households it's under 40% ... perhaps well under that ... and in practice that just means that ONE OR MORE people in that household owns a gun. The rate for individual ownership is necessarily lower than for households to have a gun in them.

The high figure for total weapons is because gun owners often own more than one gun. You should know this if you're a gun rights advocate.

"The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people"

It states an average of 88 people per 100 people. Its not weapons. It says an average of 88 per 100 people. so 88% of people own a gun....I'm just reading what it says. lol. I own a gun. If I think about it....I dont think I know anyone who doesn't have a gun. Whether they're liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, libertarian, etc. But then I live in Texas.

[Empire of Demonia]

[quote="Camicon";p="12062050"][quote="Ullan";p="12061997"]