Guns in the US (again)

[SeVeR]

You're insinuating that gun-control laws are causing the high murder rates in blue states. What you fail to realise is those states had high murder rates before the gun-control laws were put in place. In fact, that's why the laws were put in place. They already were murder fests, and for all we know the gun-control laws have lowered the rates of murder from what they were.

 

Yes, i used nationmaster

 

"Guns don't cause murders, people do"

 

I am so sick of hearing this statement. It's reductio ad absurdum. You are trying to reduce my argument to an absurdity by implying that i'm saying guns can kill people without a person to pull the trigger. Fact is: People without guns have a harder time killing people than people with guns, that's the point being made.

Edited December 22, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

Ok Sever here are the statistics using the method I did with Astro.

 

US: 4.34 per 100k. (2003)

UK: .18 per 100k. (2002)

UK: . per 100k. (per population inflation)

 

So at that you're about 6 times more likely to be shot and killed in America than in the UK.

 

Also 2 other posts of mine from a different topic.

 

Spoiler! --Click here to view--

There may be less murders but we have over a 5% lower crime rate ironically.

 

And of course these numbers are from 98-00 so things might be better or worse in certain areas now.

 

There are many factors to take into consideration also. Diversity is one, like the fact that in america something like 94% of black men are killed by black men. And I don't know the statistics exactly but the majority of gang members are black, and the majority of murders occur between gangs. Being we have 10% higher black population, and 4.92 times the population. In america we have an estimated 12.9% african american population, which equates to 38,499,304, the UK only has 60,609,153 people to begin with, and the fact that they only have 2% black population means they only have 1,212,183 blacks.

 

I dont' know how credible the source is but one source I found says that 52% of all murders in the united states are committed by black americans.

 

So I mean statistics are not black and white there are many things to consider.

 

Edit: tonight I added -

 

So if we assume that the ethnic murder % is the same in the UK, statistically speaking, and assume that the united states only had a 2% black american population, then instead of having 12658 murders a year there would only be 7096 murders. Which would right there drop us down to .0237766 per 1000.

 

I just want to point out with all of this that all numbers can be used to benefit either side. I could also show what this would do to the firearm rate but I'm way too tired for that.

 

I can keep going through the minorities until we are balanced with the UK. I'm not blaming a particular minority, but the fact is that out of the 298,444,658 million people we had in 2000, 38,499,361 were african americans. The statistic I used showed that if you were not black, you were under the "white" category, meaning that all other groups of people in america only total to 48% of the murders. Now we have 12,658 murders each year. 52% are committed by black americans, that it a statistic. So that means 6583 murders are committed by black americans each year.

 

So out of the 38,499,361 of them, there are 6583 murders committed.

 

Out of the 259,945,297 left, they all together only commit 6075 murders.

 

Your capita(per 1000) would be

 

Black Americans: .17098701

Rest of Americans: .02337030

 

As for black americans being the poorest, ironically they are poorer than latinos, when latinos have a higher high school drop out rate, much lower college graduation rate, the same yearly household income average, of course have a much lower hs graduation rate, and still manage to have a lower unemployment rate. Ironically Asian americans have the highest average household income. If the Latino and Asian americans can do it, sorry if I don't feel bad for the poor black americans. And to couple this guess which race is the race that recieves the most welfare? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

 

I'm not trying to sound racist, but the fact is that if 52% of murders are committed by a minority that accounts for 12.9% of our population, it is a direct result that our murder rate would be lower if that minority population was lower.

 

 

And btw, this is an interesting article:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1442617,00.html

[SeVeR]

I've done my research and don't know what you're talking about. You haven't told me where you got your data, they're from different years, and what on earth is population inflation?

 

These are the rates per 100,000 people.

 

US Murder Rate (2004): 5.5

US Firearm Homicide Rate (2004): 66% of total = 3.63

 

UK Murder Rate (2004/05): 1.4

UK Firearm Homicide Rate (2004/05): 9.4% of total = 0.1316

 

US and UK firearm homicide rates compared: 3.63/0.1316 = 27.6.

 

Thus, as i said earlier, you're 27 times more likely to be shot in the US. I hope this puts the matter to rest.

 

Sources:

US Department of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm "The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

UK Home Office, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf (page 48)

Edited December 22, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

 

US: 4.34 (2001 gun deaths excluding suicide)

UK: .18 (2002 gun deaths excluding suicide)

 

US: 301,139,947 population

UK: 60,776,238 population

 

There is an approximate 4.96 ratio, which I had rounded to 5 to do quick math at which point I miss calculated the UK with the same population using a linear scale would have an:

 

.89 per 100k, thus making you 4.88 times more likely to be shot in America than the UK.

 

Using your numbers its 5.58.

 

And there are so many other factors to take into account. I could go through and differentiate the minorities and dozens of other factors to keep bringing these numbers closer to even.

 

The only way you could have a statistically solid argument (by this I mean an argument that cannot be countered by manipulating statistics) would be if you found another country with an identical break down of the united states in minorities, population, poverty, health care (mental heath implied here), ect. and could then show lower murder rates with guns being banned.

 

Until then these statistics are not black and white. There are dozens of factors you need to take into consideration when actually trying to compare this topic.

[Confess]

I havnt read any of this, but this is what im saying:

 

Screw you pussies in the UK/etc. Its my right to carry a gun, and just because you think elsewise, will never change my rights.

[darkhosis]

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

 

US: 4.34 (2001 gun deaths excluding suicide)

UK: .18 (2002 gun deaths excluding suicide)

 

US: 301,139,947 population

UK: 60,776,238 population

 

There is an approximate 4.96 ratio, which I had rounded to 5 to do quick math at which point I miss calculated the UK with the same population using a linear scale would have an:

 

.89 per 100k, thus making you 4.88 times more likely to be shot in America than the UK.

 

Using your numbers its 5.58.

 

And there are so many other factors to take into account. I could go through and differentiate the minorities and dozens of other factors to keep bringing these numbers closer to even.

 

The only way you could have a statistically solid argument (by this I mean an argument that cannot be countered by manipulating statistics) would be if you found another country with an identical break down of the united states in minorities, population, poverty, health care (mental heath implied here), ect. and could then show lower murder rates with guns being banned.

 

Until then these statistics are not black and white. There are dozens of factors you need to take into consideration when actually trying to compare this topic.

it looks to me like those stats are per 100,000.. so you dont have to do all the population comparisons. it is approximately 25x, just like nationmaster says.

 

anyway, whatever. i cant own a firearm anyway.

[SeVeR]

NBV, I can't believe you still don't understand what "per 100,000" means. This accounts for population differences. It's why it's called a rate.

 

Even though you've selected old statistics from different years (suspicious), your figures still give: 4.34/0.18 = 24.

 

That's close to my 2004 answer of 27. I'm sure there are also differences between what gets included in gun deaths and firearm homicides.

 

Example:

If a school class in the UK has 25 people, and in that class 5 kids get A's, then you'd say the rate of A-students is 0.2.

If a school class in USA has 50 people, and in that class 20 kids get A's, then you'd say the rate of A-students is 0.4.

 

Now if the class in the UK were to double it's population to match that of the USA class, then more kids would get A's, but we wouldn't expect the rate to change. Rather we'd have 10 kids with A's with a rate that remains 0.2.

 

Rate's are independent of population size. There may be minor influences, but you certainly do not multiply the ratio of the two populations to get a new rate in th eway you've done.

[NBVegita]

What you don't understand, which I've stated twice, is higher population = higher crime rate.

 

The more metropolitan areas, the more minorities, the more poor people ect. = higher crime rate.

 

Example in the US at a very minimum, most metropolitan areas have at least double the crime rate of suburban areas.

 

US: 280 metropolitan areas

UK: 36.

 

I don't think you guy get that a per 100k means they took an arbitrary number like (examples) 20,000 gun deaths, with a population of 1000000 and simply divided the population by gun deaths. That gives you your per 100,000 rate, which has no consideration for any other factors than sheer deaths, which doesn't prove anything concerning the effectiveness of their gun laws.

 

In fact in that article I posted:

 

"However, gun crime figures released last October showed a 3% rise to 10,590 incidents in England and Wales in the year to June — an average of 29 a day. Gun crime has more than doubled since Labour came to power in 1997."

 

I will reiterate for the third or forth time:

 

these statistics are not black and white. There are dozens of factors you need to take into consideration when actually trying to compare this topic.

[darkhosis]

What you don't understand, which I've stated twice, is higher population = higher crime rate.

 

The more metropolitan areas, the more minorities, the more poor people ect. = higher crime rate.

ok, ok, enough beating around the bush. the more ASSS or mulattos = higher crime rate.

 

that why utah has low crime rate even with !@#$%^&*tons of guns. that why south africa and washington DC have !@#$%^&*ton of crime. do the comparison, countries around the globe!

 

ian smith... thou art a paragon amonst men.. vote ron paul!

[Bak]

yeah but it's not like all of the people in the us are in one city and all of the people in the UK are in one city... as long as the number of cities is linear in proportion to the population, your argument doesn't work.

 

 

Its my right to carry a gun, and just because you think elsewise, will never change my rights.

this is an ignorant thing to say. at one point it was your right to own a slave and with a viewpoint like yours that would have never changed.

[SeVeR]

[all_shall_perish]

I am going to have to go with the insurrectionist definition of our right to bear arms and say that it's a good thing we can still own and use weapons.

 

It is important to look at the 2nd amendment and try to understand why it was added in the first place. At the time, the United States was a very young government and country which was not very centralized. The 2nd amendment allows the common man to own and use a firearm so that if an army is needed by the federal government, it won't be hard to form using the common man.

 

Also, because the United States was still a very young government fresh from independence, it was likely that things could turn sour again. The fact that the people were able to arm themselves meant that they could fight the government in such a case where the governing bodies took a bad turn.

 

Although today we have a much more stable and centralized government, I think it is still important that citizens be able to own and use firearms not only out of defense for themselves, but just in case things become less stable. I'm not really anti-government or anything like that but people should never put too much faith in government.

 

The root of the problem exists more from a lack of social reform rather than an abundance of weaponry. Although I'm sure banning firearms would help the problem, it's not going to solve the problem. If someone really wants to commit m!@#$%^&* murder, they'll find ways to do it, even if guns aren't being sold in stores. Knowing that it's cliche by now to say, it should probably still be re-iterated: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

EDIT: As a side note concerning the use of statistics. The biggest problem I have with statistics is when someone says anything along the lines of "You'll be X times more likely to die from Y if you Z." For instance, if someone stated "you'll be 10 times more likely to die from cancer if you smoke cigarettes." The effectiveness of this statement is greatly hindered if you consider that perhaps the original chance of you dying from cancer was 0.00001%. If you smoke, then you've increased your chances to 0.0001%. Of course, the statement would be nearly useless if you said it like that.

Edited December 24, 2007 by all_shall_perish

[ESCANDAL0SA]

thank you Losa for that information.

 

You have to remember that someone with a mental problem that can lead to an impulse act of killing may not have a criminal record making it easier for them to get a gun.

 

History has shown us that everyone cannot be trusted to own a gun. It is also evedant that with guns easier to acquire, those who should not have one can get a gun more easily.

 

People seem to see guns as a defence item or for personal safety. the whole "I need a gun because they have guns" thing comes into play and the spiral begins. If you take guns away this cycle is broken and a vast minority have guns meaning people become safer not more at risk.

 

 

finally, someone who understands the point i'm trying to make. the mentality in US is "i have a right to bear arms to protect myself." this wouldn't happen if other people didn't have guns, and it is a cycle that needs to be broken. obviously, it's not working.

[ESCANDAL0SA]

seriously, lol, Canada is DEFINITELY a safer country than America. i don't know why people continue to try and find statistics to prove otherwise, because it isn't true. Canada remains one of the safest countries. the only way you can be shot at or be killed by a gun is if you !@#$%^&*ociate yourself with gangs, guns, and drugs. that's a fact. in Toronto this year, there have been 81 murders, all of the gun related murders have to do with guns, drugs, gangs or all. Canada rarely has random shootings, of course, Canada isn't immune to it, but it's a lot less than America's. The gun ban is working in Canada, the mentality there isn't, "I need to have a gun for safety", for the most part, people do feel safe without guns. Putting guns in the hands of more people can prove to more to do more harm than good, when you have crazy people using the guns for the wrong reasons. Like I already said, and NBV said, in America, a country-wide ban would need to take place before any effects are seen. Banning guns in a couple states and not in others has not effect whatsoever, and that's the biggest problem.

[ESCANDAL0SA]

After the sean taylor death, a black columnist for fox sports wrote a collumn about the hip-hop culture indirectly glorifying violence, etc. Obviously very controversial, but I think to some extent its true. Even if their work doesnt promote it, people view figures in the industry as role models, even though in their lives they are gun-toting punks. Poses a little bit of a problem lol.

 

honestly, i think most people misunderstand the hip hop culture. people living on the streets know the culture. you guys, who watch it on TV and hear it through music, don't even know the half of it. it doesn't really involve guns or weapons. it's just a way of life... a style of dressing, money chasing, nice cars, jewelery, etc. the guns in the RECENT hip hop music video... that isn't real hip hop. real hip hop is old school, talking about the hard life living in the ghetto and going through struggles. don't jump to conclusions that hip hop culture glorifies violence.

 

I havnt read any of this, but this is what im saying:

 

Screw you pussies in the UK/etc. Its my right to carry a gun, and just because you think elsewise, will never change my rights.

 

lmao. good luck with that mentality. it's like you people go around living in fear. you're carrying a gun because the next person is carrying a gun, so it's your right. and that other person thinks exactly the same thing. it's a never-ending cycle. actually, kinda sad that this way of thinking was instilled into you.

[NBVegita]

Since no gun laws have been changed in the UK that affect the number of guns in the hands of the general populace,

 

"Two years ago a guns amnesty was hailed a success by the government after more than 17,000 firearms and 450,000 rounds of ammunition were handed in to police stations across the country. There have also been recent high-profile operations to crack down on guns in inner cities."

 

Whats the point in posting an article if no one reads it?

 

You've stated the total number of metropolitan areas without considering the populations of those countries. If a country of 1 billion people has 400 metropolitan areas then would you expect that country to have a higher crime rate than the US? By your logic you would.

 

Yes I would, and I'm sorry by posting those numbers and already posting that we have 4.96 times the UK population that you couldn't see that we still have approx 130 more metropolitan cities even if you multiplied theirs.

 

As for China they also have a very strict death penalty and other similar things which help discourage crime. !@#$%^&* they even have mobile execution chambers. If you're caught stealing, they still take part of you off. !@#$%^&* I vote we start doing this in America.

 

The number of murders as a percentage of the population size is the perfect statistic for analysing the effectiveness of laws designed to stop murders...

 

And you can try and blame minorities but it won't stick. The statistics show that poverty is the leading cause crime.

 

So you can use your statistic not considering any other factors, but I can't use mine not considering any other factors?

 

Give me a break, you can't take one statistic and attempt to compare one law effecting the entire population.

[NBVegita]

that's a fact.

 

It must be coming from the all knowing LOSA lol

 

alking about the hard life living in the ghetto and going through struggles.

 

Its them glorifying their lives to young ones. You sell millions of albums talking about how you had to cheat kill and steal to make it through life, and kids start imitating that.

 

!@#$%^&* have you ever seen the movie Alpha Dog? Based off a true story where a bunch of rich suburban kids decided they wanted to play "gangsta".

 

Do you know where most of the hip hop trends started?

 

Wearing clothes 4 sizes too big: Families didn't have enough money to buy clothes for all the kids, so the young kids would have to wear the hand me downs from the older kids that were often much too big.

No Belt/shoe laces: In jail you're not allowed to have a belt or shoe laces (depending on the security of the jail)

Sagging pants: You didn't have a belt in jail to hold up your pants so they would sometimes sag some/ they were your brothers and too big for you.

 

You can keep going, most of the trends weren't done to be "cool" or because they thought it was tight to dress that way, it was done out of necessity.

[darkhosis]

honestly, i think most people misunderstand the hip hop culture. people living on the streets know the culture. you guys, who watch it on TV and hear it through music, don't even know the half of it. it doesn't really involve guns or weapons. it's just a way of life... a style of dressing, money chasing, nice cars, jewelery, etc. the guns in the RECENT hip hop music video... that isn't real hip hop. real hip hop is old school, talking about the hard life living in the ghetto and going through struggles. don't jump to conclusions that hip hop culture glorifies violence.

and youve been living on the streets, so you know it? i've spent time on the streets and i spent 18 months in prison w/ a whole bunch of stupid !@#$%^&* "Hip Hop Culture" jiggaboos.. what's your qualification on being the crackerjack of hip hop? i'm not saying i'm an expert, but id like you to list all your qualifications.

 

btw, i like how you mentioned in your own words that it involves "money chasing", nice cars, and jewelry... but not guns and weapons... yeah... cause all those fools with the pants around their knees are working as brain surgeons.. fshizzle.. we called that sagging "selling their !@#$%^&*".. they learned better once they got off the transit unit onto a real unit.. at least i hope they did, hoho.. sad thing is some wiggers did that !@#$%^&* too.

[ThunderJam]

Even if its not the hiphop culture, something is causing the african americans' crime rates to be absurdly high. Sorry im not gonna restraing myself from being politically correct here, if you guys have a problem with this sounding racist, so be it. The african americans like to have themselves as the underdogs. They whine about us saying the word !@#$%^&*, when they walk around the halls of school and streets cussing and shouting !@#$%^&* at each other. The only discrimination left agaisnt them, is being fueled by themselves. If they want to be like everyone else, try acting like it. As long as they continue to pretend like school is stupid, like putting on a suit is for dumb!@#$%^&*es, etc, their not gonna get that respect.

[all_shall_perish]

although both are pointless, there is a difference between blaming people for the color of their skin, and blaming people for their social conduct and status

[ESCANDAL0SA]

ThunderJam, it's called poverty. i've already said this before, but America doesn't make it easy for African Americans and Hispanics (make up most of the population living in poverty) to get out. When you live under those conditions, you're easily influenced to make bad decisions concerning guns, drugs, and gangs because 1) many households have only 1 parent, who is always working 2) school is not a top priority because of poor conditions, money making is (leads to drug dealing, etc.)

[ThunderJam]

Losa, i live in potomac maryland. One of the top couple richest zip codes in the country after 90210. Now im not in the rich area, so don't think im some snob, but NO ONE around here is POOR. I could drive 10 minutes away and be in a neighborhood where Mike Tyson owns a house, and pitt and jolie own a house. At the lowest, anyone living here is lower middle class. Black kids at my school waste all the money they want on designer clothes, PSP's, rolexes, but wear a spongebob backpack that they can fit just about no school work into. Yea it is hard for the people in poverty, but the majority of them that are not in poverty are still acting that way. Edited December 25, 2007 by ThunderJam

[ESCANDAL0SA]

but the kids you're talking about...how likely is that they'll go ride and die with a gang? not too likely. it's just an act, an imitation. i'm talking about the real deal. i'm surrounded by this daily. i see kids as young as 13 years old who would literally kill somebody if they got pissed off. there's a difference between acting that way and living the lifestyle. unfortunately, the area you're in, you don't see a lot of that. if you did see it, you would see the difference automatically. i didn't grow up a nice neighborhood, i went to one of the poorest schools in the area, but it wasn't that bad compared to many other places. many people try to put on that hard tough image, but that was how i grew up. i got into so many fights. here's the difference: the kids in your area are more likely to back out of a serious fight than me. when it comes down to it, fists start flying, knives show up, i can guarantee that the people you're talkng about would run.

[all_shall_perish]

i got into so many fights. here's the difference: the kids in your area are more likely to back out of a serious fight than me. when it comes down to it, fists start flying, knives show up, i can guarantee that the people you're talkng about would run.

 

Because they lack human compassion and would rather end a person's life over something petty than drop the "tough" image? Sounds reasonable and useful for when they actually grow up and have to take responsibility for their actions.

 

The sob story about poverty in America is touching, but it's also a gigantic cop-out. You can utilize the social status and lack of money as a scapegoat for someone's actions, or you could just treat them like everyone else and say they lack the ability to make the right decisions and better themselves regardless of the cir!@#$%^&*stances. I know plenty of families who never had much money, both through acquaintance and close friendship, and they managed just fine. All of them were law abiding, upstanding citizens and would strive not to be another scab on society's hind quarters.

 

The point is this: if you let your environment control who you are, then you're probably going to screw up at some point. It's not difficult to make good decisions that also fall inside the boundaries of this country's laws. Money has nothing to do with your ability to be a good citizen and contribute something worthwhile to society, it's all about how willing you are to do so.

[Greased_Lightning]

Need more education about firearms. It should be that in order to purchase one, you have to p!@#$%^&* not only a good background check, cooling-off period, but examinations on firearm safety, operation, laws, penalties, etc as well as to actually have to demonstrate safe usage to another human being. If we put as much education into firearm ownership and usage as we do in the operation of a vehicle, I think we'd be doing much better.

 

I took gun safety as a kid (required for hunting licenses) and you took everything seriously or the instructor would boot you out. There was no horseplay or joking around because it's not something to joke about. Personally, I don't think there is justification for someone to have an AK-47 for 'home protection'. I've shot one a few times and it was fun, but I don't want one because it's unnecessary.

 

Finally, speaking for the vast majority of firearm owners/operators who obey the laws and practice good safety, don't lump us in with all the idiots who go around gang-banging and want to 'pop a cap in ya'lls !@#$%^&*es'. The ghettos can burn for all I care, just keep it in your own trashy cities.