- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Interestingly your article goes on tho say
Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison.
Your blogger clearly didn't like that conclusion and preferred twitter instead so I'll stick with the criminologists if its all the same.
A far more directly comparable figure is US/UK levels of incarceration which show the US at 707 per 100,000 vs the UK at 148. Coupled with your 4.7 times greater homicide rate these figures certainly give lie to the fact that the US is either safer or more law abiding than the UK.
List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you still do not understand what the term per capita means though you will obviously have difficulty in interpreting these figures correctly
Oh, so now you are going to try the old tactic of demanding that my stats provide absolute equal comparisons, while yours don't have to....You just submarined your own argument here on stats...If mine are "not truly valid" due to different ways that our countries compile numbers, which I stated in my post, and even used a fact checking site that I believe to be biased to the left of pro gun, than yours are just as invalid...And your source is Wiki? Are you serious? :lamo
Absolutely correct Rev....All he is really doing is displaying his own fear of a piece of metal....Until he realizes that it is the person wielding the gun, and not the gun itself, then there will be no reason in his arguments, just platitudes, and talking points, and name calling....
You don't understand what the term per capita actually means and continue to embarrass yourself by your continued ignorance of it in this discussion frankly
If those figures are wrong then I'm sure you will have no problem correcting them then ? If you dont like that site there are plenty of others confirming them
Prison
http://www.idcr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WPPL-9-22.pdf
Homicide rate
https://www.quandl.com/collections/society/oecd-murder-rates
Well, Statistics are for liars, and con men....So, I won't get mired in in a back and forth of biased sites,
Stop wasting my time I'm not prepared to repost everything all over again in the hope that you even open the links this time round :roll:
Already done multiple times over throughout this thread
We have more drug crime than you but still have hugely less gun crime nonetheless. That pretty much speaks for itself
Prove it ?
It only has to happen once though doesn't it ?
A view that was no doubt echoed by the great bulk of gun owners who then went on to lose family members in just such a manner
So very true and the crux of the problem .Undoubtedly had the criminal not found it so easy to access a firearm in the first place this officer would still be alive today
Just saying you have posted it doesn't mean you did. There is greater access to American firearms. Yet murders are going down. Your argument is busted. Your claim is that...in spite of evidence of the exact opposite...that somehow it isn't true. It doesn't compute. Logically speaking.
Saying it is so doesn't make it so.
You also treat it differently and have a rapidly reducing problem with drugs. Obviously the UK treats better.
Prove it. I'm here. I've never lost a family member or a friend to an accident with a firearm. I won't ever be responsible for it either. Your argument is that because a number says I might do something...I will. Logically that does not compute
So very true and the crux of the problem .
Sadly many , many more police , and thousands of people, will have to die until basic attitudes change.
Police .. clean your house
NRA .. support rather than oppose gun control legislation
Lawmakers .. grow balls and legislate gun control
People .. learn to respect and tolerate
At all costs protect the guns in the face of all reason right ?
Linking so means it does. You had 50 cops shot and killed last year and we had none
The same thing goes even more so with firearms. We had 96 fatal shootings in 2001 by 2012 that was down to 30
http://www.juancole.com/2014/05/murders-firearm-england.html
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_4
Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. - PubMed - NCBI
Again. Our firearms access has increased. That includes public carry. Our deaths have gone down. Nothing you have produced has explained why that is.
And I've never shot myself. I'm not going to. I won't shoot friends or family either. Your statistics don't matter. They don't predict the future.
Thats right they predict the extra risk you have chosen to expose your family to
Why don't we stick to murder? You are including other statistics not relevant to the discussion. Not to mention...suicide isn't caused by a gun. It is caused by humans. Not to mention...a majority of that shift is suicide. And in those years we had a war, recession, and a major natural disaster. You don't think that might account for some of that?
Why don't you try this on for size:
Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2012
You will note these come from the fbi and they show the decrease since the sunset of the assault weapons ban. From 2000-2005 it was essentially a statistical fluctuation. Then from 09-2013 we had a drop. That is not because of stricter gun control. That hasn't happened.
Where the hell did you get your numbers? What method? Because from what I see suicides, unintentional, and JUSTIFIED are all included.
Hell...given your numbers on just firearms deaths...there is a difference of only a few hundred. That is essentially an insignificant statistical fluctuation in between those years. That isn't a major change. It is indicative of nothing.
OH! I would also add that our population changed too. By 34.3 million. We had an increase. A significant increase. And our numbers changed only slightly.
Nope. They are at no extra risk. My gun is holstered and under control. Maybe if YOU handled a gun around people they would be at risk, but I know the rules. It is in a solid holster, concealed, and under my direct control. When I don't have a gun on me it is locked in a box. When it is in my hand it is pointed in a safe direction.
Anything to avoid reality huh?
Wow, way to go, you just got destroyed by stonewall's post...you failed to address even the simplest of points being made in favor of your bumper sticker reply here...Your gun deaths are increasing not decreasing and you are putting your family at unnecessary risk by having a firearm in the home. Theres not a whole lot more I can add that I haven't already. If you choose to stay in denial then good luck with that
Wow, way to go, you just got destroyed by stonewall's post...you failed to address even the simplest of points being made in favor of your bumper sticker reply here...
Your gun deaths are increasing not decreasing and you are putting your family at unnecessary risk by having a firearm in the home. Theres not a whole lot more I can add that I haven't already. If you choose to stay in denial then good luck with that
What you mean apart from the multitude of links to studies and stats he's been provided with throughout this thread ? He doesn't even bother opening them anyway :lol:
Not a word on the disasters, war, recession, the increasing populations, or the overall reduction in deaths per capita?
Yea. I thought so. You tried to use numbers, and I used your very own plus other accurate data and destroyed your argument lol.
Oh. And I've lived in a home with firearms my entire life, my dad did, and my grandfather did. NONE of them have ever died by firearm accident. Nobody in those houses did. Nobody is at risk. Your argument is not valid.
Did you know that 100% of murders involve humans?
I did. And I thrashed your argument as a result. Our per capita has gone down. Just in case you are not aware, that means per 100k murders. That is important because our population gained an extra 340 sets of 100,000 to average in. Yea. 34,000,000 give or take.
Oh. We had a war. A hurricane that destroyed a city. A major recession too. You don't seem to want to look deeper than your opinion huh? Not willing to challenge the party line that you were sold across the pond? Not willing to look at the fact that our per capita rates went down? Lmao! What a joke man.
What you mean apart from the multitude of links to studies and stats he's been provided with throughout this thread ? He doesn't even bother opening them anyway :lol:
No, I mean what I said...Your arrogant premise that YOU know better who should, or shouldn't have a gun is rooted in fear, and irrational premise...It is typical, boilerplate anti gun blather that is generally dishonest, and steeped in slogan rather than rational thinking...So, with that we are done.
Oh I agree there is very great intellectual dishonesty on display here, but it most certainly isn't on my part.
Oh but it is....And has been shown to you how now with two separate posters...So with that we are done...
You've been given ample information contradicting that already
Where ? The UK had 30 gun murders and the US had 8,855 in 2012 !
It only has to happen once though doesn't it ?
Indeed and nearly three quarters of your grossly inflated figures involve the use of a firearm. Firearms make murder far too easy to commit
Your continued desperation to protect your guns is quite bewildering given the facts
Everytime a gun injures or kills in self-defense, one is used:
11 times for a completed or attempted suicide
7 times in a criminal assault or homicide
4 times in an unintentional shooting death or injury
USA Gun Violence Statistics | heedinggodscall.org
The joke is your continued defense of the completely indefensible. In 2000 you had 28,663 gun deaths in 2014 you had 32,561, and you are proud of this !!! :shock:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?