Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by bigdaddy, Dec 14, 2012.
Explains almost everything you've ever said.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around his assertion that African-Americans and natives of the Caribbean region are naturally more prone to criminal activity and are thus "naturally" more dangerous and likely to commit murder than most persons of European descent.
I'm not really sure I want to.
He couldn't be implying that there is a genetic predisposition to failure?
Likely no connection though it's possible equatorial regions have higher crime rates than temperate ones.
It's all because of global warming. Makes people more aggressive.
It sounded more like an amateur blogging than professional journalism; although standards certainly have fallen in recent years.
UK certified as most violent country in Europe, more violent than USA or South Africa.
Little older, but...
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
The scariest thing about those assault figures is how much Scotland skews them!
Anyway some other random statistics...
"Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales fell by 6.1% between the years ending June 2011 and June 2012, according to the latest crime statistics.
9.1m crimes were reported in 2011/12, down from 9.7m the previous year, and 27.2% lower than ten years ago."
Stats are only as good as the information that's recorded though, and what's actually counted and how it's counted.
Take the hyperbole that Australian women are raped over three times as often as American women. That isn't necessarily what the figures say now, is it. Now it could be true, or it could be the case that Australian women are three times more likely to report being raped? Or maybe that what's classed as rape by the police in Australia differs from what's classed as rape by the police in the US? After all if we just went with the statistics Sweden's the European country where a woman is most like to be raped but that doesn't really tell the whole story.
Love the fact that Australia and Canada are kidnap capitals of the world!
Also...did you know 38% of recorded gun crime in Scotland relates to air rifles?
Anyway I think we can all agree that the facts show you're more likely to be punched in Britain, but shot in America. I know where I'd rather live...
^^All very nice stats, but both the UK and Australia while having a higher crime rate, have a lower murder rate per capita than the US.
So using those stats (as well as others that have been posted) despite the UK with 4 times the violent crime rate than the US, you are around 4 times less likely to be murdered.
So which would people rather have, a higher chance of being a victim of a crime, or a higher chance of being murdered?
And no you can't answer neither, which we would of course all want.
And of course, you have to ask are crime figures recorded differently now, are people more willing to report crime now etc...
I like how they stress the increase of rape in an article about gun bans.
Us gun murder rates are skewed by the war on drugs and the resulting violence associated with it. If you legalized all drugs, regulated and taxed them just like tobacco and alcohol, and treated addiction as an illness and not a crime, you would drastically cut down the numbers of gun related crime.
I don't think rates matter as much as the actual lives lost. Parents, children, family and friends don't mourn numbers and statistics. They mourn actual lives that have been cut short.
Data and other likeminded apologists can post all they want about this nation or that country having a greater overall per capita crime rate, but even if all of the numbers were reliable and weren't manipulated or skewed it doesn't get in the way of the raw numbers of human lives lost to gun murder in America.
11,000 versus just 35 or 100? Yeah, forgive me for not giving two flying farts about the "rate." Cleverly used statistics are used in attempts to lessen the impact of and make apologies for a lot of bad things in this world so we'll stop thinking they're significant enough problems to actually do something about.
Or we could do what every other industrialized nation on Earth has done to great success.
You are talking about emotion. Laws should be devoid of emotion, and not passed because of it. Emotion is both irrational and illogical. To attempt to run a nation on it is a first class ticket to failure.
That's what I said...
Contraception and abortion laws are written and passed almost entirely on emotion, yet I don't hear a lot of people on your side of the political spectrum saying the same thing about those pieces of legislation.
Emotion impacts and affects everything whether you think it does or not. We're not a species of automatons or androids lacking emotion chips or subroutines. To think that we can function as a civilization without our individual or collective emotions impacting the laws we pass and enforce is supremely amusing and naive.
I've said that contraception should be free, sex Ed should be detailed and informative, and abortion is a tragedy that while should be legal, should be discouraged by all possible means.
You can be emotional but not let it control you to the point of loss of logical thought.
That's swell; and in addition to comprehensive gun control laws --which you and your Daily Fail statistics ironically argued in favor of by pointing out that the UK has a higher rate of survivable violent crime than the US, where the homicide rate is nearly four times as high because of the prevalence of guns-- that should really have a significant impact on reducing the murder rate in this country. It's great when we all can agree like this.
I'd suggest we all go have a pint together, but not in the ghastly post-apocalyptic wasteland that is the UK, because you're ten times as likely to get pelted with water balloons and twelve times as likely to be given a purple nurple there than you are in the much less violent US. And really, higher homicide rates be damned, because who'd want to even go on living after suffering either of those things?
Some points I would like to make.
The laws that were introduced in 1997 in Australia were bans on guns with high capacity magazines etc not on guns in general. The purpose of the bans was to stop gun massacres. From 1979 to 1996 there were 13 gun massacres in Australia, since 1997 there has been none. There was the Monash shootings in 2002 but that is regarded as a massacre because the death toll was too low (2 died).
The number of guns in Australia is now higher than it was in 1996. and is still rising.
Sexual assault is not the Australian term for rape. It is a term that includes rape, child sexual assault and indecent assault.
The UK's gun murder rate went up when they restricted guns. London had a vastly lower murder rate than New York when New York had restrictive gun laws and London did not.
Why would gun restrictions would result in the UK's homicide rate instead of Mexico's, which also has tight gun laws and a homicde rate four times higher than the US, since unlike the UK but like Mexico, we also have large criminal gangs?
Why should states like Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where gun laws basically just ban carrying a pistol in a courthouse, and which already have a lower homicide rate than the UK, change?
Wouldn't it make more sense to mimic gun laws of North Dakota, Minnesota, or Idaho, which have a fourth the average US homicide rate, instead of copying the gun laws of DC, which has a homicide rate six times higher than the US average?
Russia hasn't allowed civilian gun ownership since the 1920's and has twice our murder rate. France lets anyone own pistols and has a fraction of our murder rate.
Western Europe's gun laws vary widely, as does their rate of gun ownership, yet their homicide rates hardly differ, and the small variation there is contradicts the idea that less guns reduces homicides. Much of the world that has even more restrictive gun laws than Europe has homicide rates twenty times higher.
Even in the US, you can break homicides down demographically and see order of magnitude differences in homicide rates between groups when their access to guns is exactly the same. For example, American women own guns about 80 percent as often as men, yet their intentional homicide rate with firearms is a tenth that of males, so why would we disarm them?
Essentially, trying to reduce the homicide rate by adjusting a variable that either doesn't appear in the equation for homicide rates, or has a small negative coefficient if it does, isn't going to do much of anything. Yesterday Pew released a poll of the American public, who said that gun restrictions would be the second most useless way to prevent tragedies like Newton, right behind forbidding news outlets from mentioning the name of the shooter.
Separate names with a comma.