US Gun Control (Yes, again).

[Uieurnthlaal]

You didn't read a scrap of my analysis, did you.

You mean the one that fails to mention OVERALL violent crime rate which is higher than the US?

Yeah, you didn't read it. I didn't do overall "violent crime" for a reason: there's no such thing. What the US calls violent crime is very different from what the UK calls violent crime which is very different from what other countries call violent crime (Source). I included statistics about some specific violent crimes in previous comments. All of that confirms the idea that the US has the highest gun ownership in the developed world (well, the entire world, but that's irrelevant), and that the US is also one of the most violent nations in the developed world, namely it has some of the highest murder and sexual assault rates in the developed world.

[Chernoslavia]

Sure, the moment I bring actual indisputable statistics into the thread, everyone just ignores it and goes on arguing on and on about pointless minutiae.

Thats because your statistics are disputable. Cant you accept the fact that overall homicide and crime rate in general in the US is on the decrease?

[Uieurnthlaal]

Just to make sure nobody forgets, I'm reposting the statistics.

I believe that gun control is a good idea, since criminals are unlikely to be stopped just by a neighborhood with a high proportion of gun owners. If those neighbors really did try to shoot down the criminal, they would more likely shoot innocent bystanders. Therefore, I believe that taking back most particularly dangerous guns and regulating the purchase and repair of new guns would be most effective at reducing gun-related crime. What do you think?

A woman is walking to her car in a dark, mostly empty parking lot, when a 200-pound man emerges from behind her vehicle, produces a knife, and orders her to get into the back seat. Once she's hidden away from view, he climbs into the car with her and starts tearing at her clothes.

At that moment, I would argue that the woman needs a gun more than any other thing on planet earth. A gun ban would leave her defenseless, raped, and possibly dead.

Let's get a round of applause for public safety, everyone.

Who are the alarmists now? And what about my proof that that won't happen, by showing example of all the developed countries in the world, with intentional homicides on the y-axis, and gun-ownership on the x-axis:
.
Here is a trend line, showing the average linear relation between gun-rates and murder-rates:

Now you might say, while the line does point slightly up, it's not very certain, and what about those three points at the beginning with low gun rates but high murder rates? Those are the Seychelles, Estonia, and Cuba. We can deal with them on a case by case basis: First, the seychelles only recently became a multiparty democracy, and still has some crime remaining from prior days. They are still plagued by a somewhat undemocratic government. Estonia has significant organized crime as a result of problems associated with the previous socialist regime. And Cuba is, well, Cuba. So, I think it's fair to say that those countries have very special histories that give them high levels of crime, so including them would just skew the analysis because of a few outliers. This is commonly done in statistics, in order to account for special cases. How about on the other sides? Outliers that are too low? Well, the majority of them seem to follow a simple line, except for those three outliers, so we can assume that those are the only outliers. Now, if we get rid of them, we get this:
.
A fairly convincing graph, showing that developed countries as a whole, when they have more guns, they have more crime. What's the anti-gun control crowd's response to this?
Sources: Crime, HDI, and Guns.
To account for other violent crimes, I included this:
I can only address one sort of crime at a time, so the most obvious choice is intentional homicide rates. I took me long enough to make these graphs and this statistical analysis, so I'll give you this link which will show you that US, UK, and Australia all have the sexual assault rate at around 30/100 000, and most developed countries have a much lower rate, which conversely also have a much lower gun rate.

[Chernoslavia]

You mean the one that fails to mention OVERALL violent crime rate which is higher than the US?

Yeah, you didn't read it. I didn't do overall "violent crime" for a reason: there's no such thing. What the US calls violent crime is very different from what the UK calls violent crime which is very different from what other countries call violent crime (Source). I included statistics about some specific violent crimes in previous comments. All of that confirms the idea that the US has the highest gun ownership in the developed world (well, the entire world, but that's irrelevant), and that the US is also one of the most violent nations in the developed world, namely it has some of the highest murder and sexual assault rates in the developed world.

No, but what the FBI and MI5 statistics list is the type of crime thats similar in both nations. And cut it out with the ''developed world'' bullcrap, Costa Rica is a 3rd world country but it has one of the lowest homicide and violent crime rates in both American continents.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Sure, the moment I bring actual indisputable statistics into the thread, everyone just ignores it and goes on arguing on and on about pointless minutiae.

That's because your statistics are disputable. Can't you accept the fact that overall homicide and crime rate in general in the US are on the decrease?

Then dispute them. I don't care about the trend in terms of time, they're irrelevant. All that's relevant are the correlation, whether positive or negative, between guns and crime. I posted it that, with full sources. If you have a problem with that, prove that my sources are wrong.
Also, I have a question? What evidence would it take to convince you that guns do have a correlation with violence? According to the study I posted in the OP, the answer is nothing, but I'm curious what you think the answer is.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Yeah, you didn't read it. I didn't do overall "violent crime" for a reason: there's no such thing. What the US calls violent crime is very different from what the UK calls violent crime which is very different from what other countries call violent crime (Source). I included statistics about some specific violent crimes in previous comments. All of that confirms the idea that the US has the highest gun ownership in the developed world (well, the entire world, but that's irrelevant), and that the US is also one of the most violent nations in the developed world, namely it has some of the highest murder and sexual assault rates in the developed world.

No, but what the FBI and MI5 statistics list is the type of crime thats similar in both nations. And cut it out with the ''developed world'' bullcrap, Costa Rica is a 3rd world country but it has one of the lowest homicide and violent crime rates in both American continents.

Funny that you should say that. Costa Rica is a developed country, and it fits my model perfectly. I still don't see your point.

[Wirbel]

You just contradicted yourself, you said you oppose condescension but you called yourself condescending.

Yep, NSG is going to eat him alive.

Yes. "In its belly you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a…thousand years."

[Uieurnthlaal]

Yep, NSG is going to eat him alive.

Yes. "In its belly you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a…thousand years."

That was a misquote, from when I was referring to other people calling me condescending for trying to enforce the rules I had set forth in the OP.

[Hornesia]

1. What does this have anything to do with gun control?

2. Here's the kick: Me having my way meaning me having whatever gun I want, doesnt put anyone at risk. The only people acting in a ''my way or no play'' attitude is you and the god damned gun control lobby.

3. Emotional bullshit? EMOTIONAL BULLSHIT? Emotional bullshit is the anti-gun crowd wanting to ban rifles that account for less than 3% of overall gun crime. Emotional bullshit is the gun control crowd's unadulterated bitching about the NRA sponsoring NASCAR, emotional bullshit is Obama dropping temper tantrums because Congress refused to feed into his ''Universal Background check''.

4. I dont want my defensive resources to be limited to just a pistol with only 10 rd mags when my attacker has an ak47. I dont want to waist fuel and time to go to a police station to sign a 4473 just to lend my wife a handgun for two minutes.

5. Words do have means however if misused, they become irrelevent. Just like your arguement....if you call it that.

6. So I'll say it again, restricting law abiding citizens to certain firearms just because of the actions of a criminal is punishment, whether you call it punishment or ''public safety'', its only criminalizing the law abiding.

Can you please react to my extensive analysis showing that developed countries with fewer guns per capita also have lower intentional homicide rates?

You're forgetting Rule 11.

[Chernoslavia]

That's because your statistics are disputable. Can't you accept the fact that overall homicide and crime rate in general in the US are on the decrease?

Then dispute them. I don't care about the trend in terms of time, they're irrelevant. All that's relevant are the correlation, whether positive or negative, between guns and crime. I posted it that, with full sources. If you have a problem with that, prove that my sources are wrong.
Also, I have a question? What evidence would it take to convince you that guns do have a correlation with violence? According to the study I posted in the OP, the answer is nothing, but I'm curious what you think the answer is.

Glad you finally asked:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

USA
Overall violent crime 1992 - 757.7 per 100,000 inhabitants

Overall violent crime 2011 - 386.3 per 100,00 inhabitants

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sb0812.pdf

England and Wales

Overall violent crime 2011/12 - 1361 per 100,000 inhabitants
Thats 3 and a half times the US violent crime rate

[Chernoslavia]

No, but what the FBI and MI5 statistics list is the type of crime thats similar in both nations. And cut it out with the ''developed world'' bullcrap, Costa Rica is a 3rd world country but it has one of the lowest homicide and violent crime rates in both American continents.

Funny that you should say that. Costa Rica is a developed country, and it fits my model perfectly. I still don't see your point.

source?

[Condunum]

Funny that you should say that. Costa Rica is a developed country, and it fits my model perfectly. I still don't see your point.

source?

He's actually wrong there, but Costa Rica has far more progress in certain areas than others.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Then dispute them. I don't care about the trend in terms of time, they're irrelevant. All that's relevant are the correlation, whether positive or negative, between guns and crime. I posted it that, with full sources. If you have a problem with that, prove that my sources are wrong.
Also, I have a question? What evidence would it take to convince you that guns do have a correlation with violence? According to the study I posted in the OP, the answer is nothing, but I'm curious what you think the answer is.

Glad you finally asked:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

USA
Overall violent crime 1992 - 757.7 per 100,000 inhabitants

Overall violent crime 2011 - 386.3 per 100,00 inhabitants

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sb0812.pdf

England and Wales

Overall violent crime 2011/12 - 1361 per 100,000 inhabitants
Thats 3 and a half times the US violent crime rate

Further proof that you respond to what I write without ever reading it.

What the US calls violent crime is very different from what the UK calls violent crime which is very different from what other countries call violent crime (Source). I included statistics about some specific violent crimes in previous comments. All of that confirms the idea that the US has the highest gun ownership in the developed world (well, the entire world, but that's irrelevant), and that the US is also one of the most violent nations in the developed world, namely it has some of the highest murder and sexual assault rates in the developed world.

I already told you, before you even posted that, why you were wrong. Why can't you read for once.

[Uieurnthlaal]

source?

He's actually wrong there, but Costa Rica has far more progress in certain areas than others.

Sorry, mistake. Costa Rica narrowly misses the line to be developed. However, it still has a low murder rate and low gun-ownership rate, proving my point. I sourced these in the source for the graphs.

[Chernoslavia]

Glad you finally asked:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

USA
Overall violent crime 1992 - 757.7 per 100,000 inhabitants

Overall violent crime 2011 - 386.3 per 100,00 inhabitants

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sb0812.pdf

England and Wales

Overall violent crime 2011/12 - 1361 per 100,000 inhabitants
Thats 3 and a half times the US violent crime rate

Further proof that you respond to what I write without ever reading it.

What the US calls violent crime is very different from what the UK calls violent crime which is very different from what other countries call violent crime (Source). I included statistics about some specific violent crimes in previous comments. All of that confirms the idea that the US has the highest gun ownership in the developed world (well, the entire world, but that's irrelevant), and that the US is also one of the most violent nations in the developed world, namely it has some of the highest murder and sexual assault rates in the developed world.

I already told you, before you even posted that, why you were wrong. Why can't you read for once.

1. Your wikipedia article has some citations that need to be sourced and is far different than my article. My article is from an unbiased source that cannot be edited by just anybody.

2. All the violent crimes listed on both sources are considered violent crimes in both nations. Thanks for proving yourself wrong again. Even if its the other way around, the number of violent crimes committed in the UK will still be far higher in the UK. So much for '' why, i'll say....you yanks are so barbaric''

[Norjagen]

Very well, then. Allow me to refute your irrefutable statistics.

THIS is table 1 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report, 2011. This table tracks crime in the United States, by volume and rate per 100,000 inhabitants. As you can see, between the years of 1992 and 2011, the United States saw a decrease in overall yearly violent crime of 728,710; down to 1,203,564 from 1,932,274. Per capita, the violent crime rate dropped from 757.7 to 386.3; a decline of nearly 50% per 100,000 residents.

The per-capita murder rate dropped from 9.3 to 4.7; a decline of 49%.

In fact, you'll see drastic drops in crime all across the board.

Let's have a look at concealed carry in the same time period.
In 1992, the per-state breakdown for right to carry was as follows:
No Issue:14 (No concealed-carry permitted under any circumstances)
May Issue:19 (Upon meeting requirements, applicant may still be denied at the state's discretion. In many states, such as CA, essentially equates to 'no issue.')
Shall Issue:16 (State must issue permit if applicant meets all requirements.)

In 2011, the states broke down as follows:
No Issue:1
May Issue:8
Shall Issue:37
Unrestricted:4

As you can see, the near-half reduction in violent crime and murder has occurred amidst across-the-board loosening of restrictions on concealed carry. This, of course, occurs alongside the increasing numbers of armed citizens in the US. Florida alone has 1,090,017 active permits as of May 31, 2013.

I will not fall into the correlation = causation fallacy that you have fallen into by saying that more guns definitively equal less crime. I will, however, point out that clearly, more guns (and more people carrying guns) has not equaled more crime for the United States. Your statistics are flawed in claiming an overriding cause, based on a single correlation, while ignoring all other societal factors.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Further proof that you respond to what I write without ever reading it.


I already told you, before you even posted that, why you were wrong. Why can't you read for once.

1. Your wikipedia article has some citations that need to be sourced and is far different than my article. My article is from an unbiased source that cannot be edited by just anybody.

2. All the violent crimes listed on both sources are considered violent crimes in both nations. Thanks for proving yourself wrong again. Even if its the other way around, the number of violent crimes committed in the UK will still be far higher in the UK. So much for '' why, i'll say....you yanks are so barbaric''

One. Wikipedia? You didn't even open the link, then.
Two. I checked your articles, and the US page said nothing about the definition of violent crime, I had to go to an entirely different page, while the UK page, so far as I could see, said nothing at all about the definition of violent crime anywhere I could see. I will, however, refer to politifact, which rates your statement wildly false.

[Ponderosa]

First of all, to all the people saying "Oh no, not another thread like this" you are under no obligation to comment on this. You can keep scrolling down and find a topic that you would be interested in.

Aren't you about 40 pages too late for this post to be relevant?

I'm sure there will be more.

[Chernoslavia]

He's actually wrong there, but Costa Rica has far more progress in certain areas than others.

Sorry, mistake. Costa Rica narrowly misses the line to be developed. However, it still has a low murder rate and low gun-ownership rate, proving my point. I sourced these in the source for the graphs.

Proving that a nation's ''developed'' status shouldnt be associated with the gun homicide rate of said country. Furthermore, Costa Rica is also one of the smallest nations with one of the smallest populations in Central America which could be one of the reasons why it has a relatively low gun ownership rate. But heres a thing, Costa Rica is more gun friendly than people think. The thing is Costa Rica's people believe in peace, even establishing certain 'paz' universities relating to such.

In Venezuela, while having tighter gun control has higher gun homicides which are usually drug related.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Very well, then. Allow me to refute your irrefutable statistics.

THIS is table 1 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report, 2011. This table tracks crime in the United States, by volume and rate per 100,000 inhabitants. As you can see, between the years of 1992 and 2011, the United States saw a decrease in overall yearly violent crime of 728,710; down to 1,203,564 from 1,932,274. Per capita, the violent crime rate dropped from 757.7 to 386.3; a decline of nearly 50% per 100,000 residents.

The per-capita murder rate dropped from 9.3 to 4.7; a decline of 49%.

In fact, you'll see drastic drops in crime all across the board.

Let's have a look at concealed carry in the same time period.
In 1992, the per-state breakdown for right to carry was as follows:
No Issue:14 (No concealed-carry permitted under any circumstances)
May Issue:19 (Upon meeting requirements, applicant may still be denied at the state's discretion. In many states, such as CA, essentially equates to 'no issue.')
Shall Issue:16 (State must issue permit if applicant meets all requirements.)

In 2011, the states broke down as follows:
No Issue:1
May Issue:8
Shall Issue:37
Unrestricted:4

As you can see, the near-half reduction in violent crime and murder has occurred amidst across-the-board loosening of restrictions on concealed carry. This, of course, occurs alongside the increasing numbers of armed citizens in the US. Florida alone has 1,090,017 active permits as of May 31, 2013.

I will not fall into the correlation = causation fallacy that you have fallen into by saying that more guns definitively equal less crime. I will, however, point out that clearly, more guns (and more people carrying guns) has not equaled more crime for the United States. Your statistics are flawed in claiming an overriding cause, based on a single correlation, while ignoring all other societal factors.

According to your own source, crime was decreasing steadily from the 90's onward, until 2004, when the major gun control law expired, and crime increased, before gradually starting to decrease again, now at a slower rate. That doesn't particularly help your case.

[Grave_n_idle]

I will not fall into the correlation = causation fallacy that you have fallen into by saying that more guns definitively equal less crime.

What he (or she?) said was: "A fairly convincing graph, showing that developed countries as a whole, when they have more guns, they have more crime."

That says there's a correlation, it doesn't claim cause.

I will, however, point out that clearly, more guns (and more people carrying guns) has not equaled more crime for the United States. Your statistics are flawed in claiming an overriding cause, based on a single correlation, while ignoring all other societal factors.

The post did mention other factors.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Sorry, mistake. Costa Rica narrowly misses the line to be developed. However, it still has a low murder rate and low gun-ownership rate, proving my point. I sourced these in the source for the graphs.

Proving that a nation's ''developed'' status shouldnt be associated with the gun homicide rate of said country. Furthermore, Costa Rica is also one of the smallest nations with one of the smallest populations in Central America which could be one of the reasons why it has a relatively low gun ownership rate. But heres a thing, Costa Rica is more gun friendly than people think. The thing is Costa Rica's people believe in peace, even establishing certain 'paz' universities relating to such.

In Venezuela, while having tighter gun control has higher gun homicides which are usually drug related.

Numbers don't lie. Words might, but numbers don't.
I have shown you based on widely accepted statistics that developed countries with less guns, practically as a rule, have less murder. You have, as of yet, failed to disprove any of my sourced claims, or sources.

[Uieurnthlaal]

I will not fall into the correlation = causation fallacy that you have fallen into by saying that more guns definitively equal less crime.

What he (or she?) said was: "A fairly convincing graph, showing that developed countries as a whole, when they have more guns, they have more crime."

That says there's a correlation, it doesn't claim cause.

I will, however, point out that clearly, more guns (and more people carrying guns) has not equaled more crime for the United States. Your statistics are flawed in claiming an overriding cause, based on a single correlation, while ignoring all other societal factors.

The post did mention other factors.

Proving causation is physically impossible without doing an experiment on the US itself. So, these statistical methods, with proving correlation for as many indices as possible, and getting rid of outliers, is the best possible method without directly doing an experiment on the US itself. So far, the evidence that I have given seems to indicate that fewer guns, as a rule, correlate with less crime.

[Chernoslavia]

Proving that a nation's ''developed'' status shouldnt be associated with the gun homicide rate of said country. Furthermore, Costa Rica is also one of the smallest nations with one of the smallest populations in Central America which could be one of the reasons why it has a relatively low gun ownership rate. But heres a thing, Costa Rica is more gun friendly than people think. The thing is Costa Rica's people believe in peace, even establishing certain 'paz' universities relating to such.

In Venezuela, while having tighter gun control has higher gun homicides which are usually drug related.

Numbers don't lie. Words might, but numbers don't.
I have shown you based on widely accepted statistics that developed countries with less guns, practically as a rule, have less murder. You have, as of yet, failed to disprove any of my sourced claims, or sources.

Your sourced claims mention nothing of what your arguing about. You say ''numbers dont lie'' yeah. That absolutely right, and do you know what those numbers say? That the UK's violent crime rate is 3.5 times higher than America's, same as costa rica's nearly non existant gun homicide rate is significantly lower than Venezuela's gun homicide rate.

You can try and sugar coat the facts however you like, the facts still remain the same: UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. And that gun crime in the US is decreasing despite gun laws being laxed in 2004.

[Norjagen]

What he (or she?) said was: "A fairly convincing graph, showing that developed countries as a whole, when they have more guns, they have more crime."

That says there's a correlation, it doesn't claim cause.



The post did mention other factors.

Proving causation is physically impossible without doing an experiment on the US itself. So, these statistical methods, with proving correlation for as many indices as possible, and getting rid of outliers, is the best possible method without directly doing an experiment on the US itself. So far, the evidence that I have given seems to indicate that fewer guns, as a rule, correlate with less crime.

Except, of course, in the United States, which despite loosening gun laws and increasing gun ownership, has seen a steady decrease in crime.