Hi Legend, just lost a long post ... so this is probably longer ...
I brought up Switzerland as a country with high gun ownership yet relatively low crime. Yes I admit that it hasn't one of the lowest crime rates in the world but that doesn't invalidate my point. Even more importantly, you presented the homicide rates stand alone without any thought for correlation against gun ownership, nor for poverty or other factors that may affect those rates.
Exactly, and those other factors make Switzerland sufficiently different from the US that you can't compare them to show a benefit to gun ownership. Let's look at poverty as an indicator of the need for people to commit crime:
quote:In Switzerland, poverty means not having what others take for granted. The official poverty line in 2005 was 2,200 francs per month for a single person household, or 4,600 for a family with two children. ... Families were defined as poor if they received less than half the median income for their country. In this respect only the Scandinavians had a lower rate. Switzerland tied with the Czech Republic. The rate in Australia was 14.7%, in Canada 14.9, in Great Britain 15.4, and the US 21.9%. ... Welfare benefit is available for those who would otherwise fall below the minimum means of existence. According to the Federal Statistical Office 3.3% of the population drew such benefits in 2005. The report showed that beneficiaries were more likely to live in urban centres, where they accounted for five per cent of the population, than in rural areas, where the rate was only 1.4%.
quote:he economy of Switzerland is one of the world's most stable economies. Its policy of long-term monetary security and bank secrecy has made Switzerland a safe haven for investors, creating an economy that is increasingly dependent on a steady tide of foreign investment. Because of the country's small size and high labour specialisation, industry and trade are the keys to Switzerland's economic livelihood. Switzerland has achieved one of the highest per capita incomes in the world with low unemployment rates and a low budget deficit. The service sector has also come to play a significant economic role. ... Switzerland is among the world's most prosperous countries in terms of private income. In 2007 the gross median household income in Switzerland was an estimated 107,748 CHF, or USD 60,288 at purchasing power parity. The median income after social security, taxes and mandatory health insurance was 75,312 CHF, or USD 43,698 at purchasing power parity.
quote:The most common measure of poverty in the United States is the "poverty threshold" set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society.[1] The official threshold is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index. ... Relative poverty describes how income relates to the median income, and does not imply that the person is lacking anything. In general the United States has some of the highest relative poverty rates among industrialized countries, reflecting both the high median income and high degree of inequality.[4] ... Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7% in 2001 to 11.1% in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3% to 3.5%. [31]
Country Absolute poverty rate Relative poverty rate[4] Norway 09.2 1.7 12.4 4.0 Finland 11.9 3.7 12.4 3.1
Switzerland 12.5 3.8 10.9 9.1 Germany 15.2 4.3 9.7 5.1
United Kingdom 16.8 8.7 16.4 8.2
United States 21.0 11.7 17.2 15.1 Netherlands 22.1 7.3 18.5 11.5 Canada 22.5 6.5 17.1 11.9 Australia 23.3 11.9 16.2 9.2 (Absolute poverty rate threshold set at 40% of U.S. median household income)[6]
Note: I have no idea what columns 2 and 4 represent, but the data sorts under the categories by the first or third columns, so those would be the rates in question, with Switzerland at 12.5 (per thousand?) or <74% of the UK rate (16.8) and <60% of the US rate (21.0) on the absolute poverty scale, and 10.9 on the relative poverty scale, <66% of the UK rate (16.4) and <57% of the US rate (17.2).
The relative rate is probably better for predicting burglaries, as it compares who would likely be perps and who would likely be victims -- there's not much benefit to stealing from someone as poor as you within a given society.
Let's compare these rates to your data in Message 274 for burglaries (your person invading a residence to steal) and murders (where people die by violence):
quote:Burglaries (per capita) # 7 out of 54 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people # 13 out of 54 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people weighted average: 5.1 per 1,000 people
Ratio of Burglaries (Switzerland/UK) 58%
That's a pretty good correlation to the poverty rate ratio of 66%.
Compare them to your gun ownership statistics
quote:Gun ownership (guns/residents): Switzerland : 0.46 (3 out of 34) UK : 0.056 (29 out of 34)
Ratio of Gun Ownership (UK/Switzerland) 12%
Uk has 12% of the gun ownership of Switzerland, and you claim a direct inverse relationship, so this should relate to 12% of burglaries. It doesn't.
quote:Murders (per capita) # 46 out of 62 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people # 56 out of 62 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people
Ratio of (all) Murders (Switzerland/UK) 66%
That's a very good correlation to the poverty rate ratio of 66%.
Uk has 12% of the gun ownership of Switzerland, and you claim a direct inverse relationship, so this should relate to 12% of burglaries and murders. It doesn't.
Now let's go back to those murder by gun rates for these two countries as given in Message 252 to show that you are still picking the stats that you like:
% homicides Firearm homicide Country with firearms rate per 100,000 pop. England & Wales 8 0.12 Australia 16 0.31 Ireland 24 0.32 Canada 34 0.54 Switzerland 37 0.56 United States 65 2.97
England & Wales is 21% compared to Switzerland - a closer correlation to the rate of gun ownership than either burglaries or murders overall. This certainly seems to show that an increase in the proportion of guns available means that the methods chosen for murder are increasingly biased to using guns. The higher rate of gun ownership in Switzerland is matched by a higher rate of murders committed by firearms.
Conclusion: the rate of murders and burglaries correlates well with poverty rates irrespective of gun ownership rates, and increased rates of gun ownership correlate with increased use of guns to commit murders.
Hi Legend, this will be quick, as I've already replied in another post.
Nonsense. Shooting at someone who's just invaded your home *isn't* cowboy vigilante justice, not by a long shot. Cowboy vigilante justice implies being proactive, seeking out criminals.
False. Cowboy vigilante justice is deciding that you will be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
Even this woman you brought up wasn't applying cowboy vigilante justice, she was only over-reacting based on her own prejudice and paranoia, just as she would have even if she didn't have a gun. Let's get one thing clear: Psychopaths and guns are NOT mutually inclusive! You bringing up this incident is a desparate attempt to imply that they are.
Burglary is not a crime punishable by death, so you're willingness to give a death sentence for such a crime is you over-reacting based on your own prejudice and paranoia, and if you ever end up engaging in this behavior you might find the justice system takes a dim view of this behavior, possibly because it IS cowboy vigilante justice.
I'm 37 and I've encountered at least a dozen. So have many of my friends and family. Just because you've been fortunate enough not to doesn't mean that other people are or will be.
A dozen? ... and yet you still live and post freely. What injuries did you receive? How would it have been different if you had a gun?
Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it. They have waged wars against it and attacked it in many ways throughout the years. Yet, 60 years on, Israel's still standing. This IS the evidence.
Perhaps you can list who those "most" are and provide evidence of it.
I'll note that Hezbollah is an organization, not a neighbor, and it has been able to find many recruits solely due to the behavior of Israel, without which they would not exist.
Yes, 60 years, and there has been no change of any significance because the neighbors keep reacting to the exclusive behavior of Israel. Curiously, one of your gun bearing citizens in Israel even killed the best possibility for peace because the extremists IN Israel don't want to share.
I'm not even going to go there. I can't believe we're even talking about this.
Is that because you are unwilling (confirmation bias) or unable (cognitive dissonance) to understand the relationships?
We're talking about this because it is an example of precisely the false thinking that guns can solve problems, or even reduce them, by attacking symptoms rather than dealing with the real social issues.
My oh my, where do I begin? First off there was never any "armed deterrent" approach or "Cold War" situation in NI, it was all-out war. This fact alone makes yout argument irrelevant.
Who said anything about a "Cold War" situation? It's just a straight comparison of the "Irish Troubles" and the middle east conflagration.
Please read your own description of Israel's relationship with it's neighbors again.
quote:"The Troubles" refers to approximately three decades of violence between elements of Northern Ireland's nationalist community (principally Roman Catholic) and unionist community (principally Protestant). Use of the term "The Troubles" has been raised at NI Assembly level, as some people considered this period of conflict a war [15][16][17][18][19]. The conflict was the result of discrimination against the catholic/nationalist minority by the Protestant/unionist majority[20] and the question of Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom.[21][22]
Discrimination and exclusionary policies are not ways to make friends. If Israel truly wants peace, they need to make friends, not more enemies.
Second, the problem still persists: it's the British occupation of NI and its mixed populace. The IRA terrorism was just a symptom, not the underlying problem itself. Just because everyone decided to talk it over doesn't mean that the problem's been solved, nor that the symptoms won't re-appear.
Curiously, the solution has involved much more than just talk, it has included participation in government and in developing further solutions. Of course, if that breaks down then violence may reemerge for the same reasons it did originally, the same reasons that violence still exists in the middle east: marginalization and disenfranchising of people.
Fascinatingly, these are also reasons for people to turn to crime ...
So we can still carry on debating statistics that can't be used as conclusive evidence either way until a multitude of contributing variables has been factored in.
Where we see that the devil can cite statistics to support his position, when you don't care about the validity of the statistics.
Or we can focus on the simple, easily-demonstrable things like the value of armed deterrence and the shape of the state-citizen relationship. Which one's it going to be?
Which has not been demonstrated.
Which also would mean ignoring the evidence that shows that poverty is a major cause of crime: poverty, disenfranchisement, marginalization, discrimination and exclusionary policies turn people into anti-social behavior because they are rejected by the society.
I take your point about poverty and other factors that affect these stats.
Then the strong relationship of crime to poverty is what the evidence shows, and no real correlation with crime and "armed deterrence" exists.
However, let it be known that I was the first one who insisted on comparing similar societies like the UK / US.
Really? Curious, then that the proportion of violent crimes - as measured by assaults (whether involving guns or not) per 100 people - in the US, in Canada and in the UK are about the same, as noted way back in Message 57:
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people # 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people # 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
So we have essentially the same number of assaults per person for similar cultures and legal systems, and where reporting of such crimes is likely to be comparable.
(color for emphasis)
This shows that the use of "armed deterrence" in the US has virtually no effect on the rate of assaults - for countries you agree are comparable on social grounds such that the effect of other factors (such as poverty) are minimized.
Curious, then that the proportion of murders - the assaults that result in death - is much higher in the US than in either Canada or the UK (from Message 57 again):
# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people # 44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people # 46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
So there is a cultural bias to murder in the US compared to Canada and the UK that is out of proportion with the assault per capita above. In other words in the US assaults are more likely to result in murder.
Assault is ~3x's more likely to result in death in the US than in Canada or the UK. Obviously the "armed deterrence" factor you wish to embrace is not functioning here.
Curious, then that the proportion of murders - the assaults that result in death - involving firearms is ALSO much higher in the US than in either Canada or the UK (from Message 57 again):
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people # 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people # 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
And there is a higher cultural bias to murder with guns in the US than in Canada or the UK.
Assault with a firearm is ~5x's more likely to result in death in the US than in Canada and ~28x's more likely to result in death in the US than in the UK. Obviously the "armed deterrence" factor you wish to embrace is not functioning here either.
Why would you want to import a system that results in more deaths per capita from the US to the UK? Shouldn't we be going the other direction?
Or is your rational NOT based on the overall social good, but on your personal wish to render vengeance?
So as you see, my opposition thought that they could cleverly destroy my argument by bringing in statistics from different countries, out of context, as long as they supported their point. To their detriment, they found out that this is a double-edged sword.
Perhaps then we should just use the ones above?
Overall assault numbers the same - no effect of "armed deterrence" demonstrated;
Assault resulting in death (murders) higher in the US than in Canada or the UK - an inverse correlation to "armed deterrence" in the prevention of assaults; and finally
Assaults with firearms resulting in death MUCH higher in the US than in Canada or the UK - an even greater inverse relationship to "armed deterrence" in the prevention of assaults.
The question comes down to whether you are willing to accept the status quo of assaults with low mortality in countries with strong gun control laws, or whether you want to escalate the arms race between assaulter and assaultee so that the proportion of assaults resulting in death is higher.
Assaults are a measure of the result of interactions of people. Burglaries, which would include incidents when nobody is home, and thus no opportunity to evaluate the benefit of gun ownership is provided, does not give an accurate measure of the effect of gun ownership on the interactions of people. In addition, burglaries are demonstrably reduced more by improved security systems than by "armed deterrence" - so guns are not the solution here either.
Perhaps, if you think of this in evolutionary terms, you can see that arming one group causes the other to counter with more armament for their protection. Increasing armament will not reduce assaults, it will result in a higher proportion of assaults with severe bodily harm and death.
Solving the social problems that lead to assaults and burglaries is the ONLY way to reduce the occurrence of assaults and burglaries.
Really? Then each and every self-defence situation that has ever happened or will happen is 'Cowboy vigilante justice', according to your reasoning.
Nope. Preemptively shooting someone when you are not in imminent bodily danger is. Killing someone to protect your CD's is.
First of, *NO* crime in European countries and most US states is punishable by death, so that means that any situation where the victim kills their attacker is an 'over-reaction' according to you.
Every situation where the punishment you would like to inflict exceeds the punishment dictated by a court of law after due process is an over-reaction. Killing someone over a petty crime is an over-reaction.
Just lucky I guess. I've had three incidents involving myself and many more where I directly witnessed violence inflicted on others
So now we are down from "at least a dozen" to three.
Physically: only a broken nose, cracked ribs and a broken finger. That was just luck, I could have just as easily been killed.
So you got beat up instead of shot. Good thing they did not have access to guns eh?
On two occasions, I had ample opportunity to shoot the attackers. If only I had had a gun.
So says the person claiming to NOT want to use cowboy vigilante justice ...
Or they you, if THEY had a gun. You want to make it easier for anyone to have a gun? Making guns easier to get just raises the level of arms on both sides and increases the likelihood that YOU are shot.
No I won't. If you seriously believe that there are any of Israel's neighbours who haven't been varyingly hostile towards it then I suggest you catch up on your history and geography classes. This isn't the place for pointing out historical facts.
So you can't even name one off the top of your head? I'll take that as an example of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance in action: refusal to look at the evidence that MIGHT prove you wrong.
Irrelevant. It's a large Lebanese paramilitary group who have vowed to destroy Israel. Irrelevant. They've repeatedly tried to destroy it and failed. Irrelevant. This isn't about how Israel can make friends or not, this is about how Israel has managed to survive that long surrounded by hostile neighbours: by the value of it's armed deterrent.
Curiously, the relevance escapes you because you don't want to see the obvious: Israel's continued policy fuels the hostility, generation after generation after generation.
This is quite ironic given that the Arabs are only considering peace talks after having repeatedly failed to destroy Israel, due to the strength of its armed forces.
It is even more ironic that after 60 years of absolute failure to beat the Arabs into submission, that Israel is considering peace talks in spite of the strength of its armed forces. This is because, like the hydra of greek mythology, every time a head was cut off another one took its place - generated by the act of cutting the head off.
It becomes even more ironic looking at Northern ireland: the only reason the NI peace process came to be was that both sides had enough after 30 years of armed struggle. Yes, it was the guns of the IRA that ensured that the British couldn't easily assimilate NI into the Union and it was the guns of the British forces that ensured that the Nationalists couldn't 'liberate' NI.
So then they FINALLY looked for AND FOUND a different solution. One that in the space of a FEW YEARS accomplished MORE than 30 years of fighting.
Does this show that guns solve problems? No it doesn't, but this was never the supposition on this thread anyway. What it *does show* is that armed deterrence ensures that one's rights and liberties are not trampled by others.
So what do you think about Israels continued trampling of the rights and liberties of the Arabs? Do you think that is justification for the arabs to fight back by whatever means possible?
Has Israels policy ensured the rights and liberties of the arabs?
Do you think a solution that recognizes the rights and liberties of ALL the people involved would work better than continued warring and blasting away at each other?
No, armed deterrence does NOT ensure that one's rights and liberties are not trampled by others, it ensures that the arms race will escalate until a different solution is tried.
Consider instead the liberation of India from the English oppressors. There was a lot of fighting and bloodshed, but one man won the battle to have the rights and liberties of the Indian people, without using a single gun.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Gujarati: મોહનદાસ કરમચંદ ગાંધી, pronounced [moːɦənˈdaːs kəɾəmˈtʂənd ˈɡaːndʱiː] ( listen); 2 October 1869 — 30 January 1948) was the pre-eminent political and spiritual leader of India during the Indian independence movement. He was the pioneer of satyagraharesistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience, firmly founded upon ahimsa or total non-violencewhich led India to independence and has inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. Gandhi is commonly known around the world as Mahatma Gandhi (Sanskrit: महात्मा mahātmā or 'Great Soul', an honorific first applied to him by Rabindranath Tagore),[1] and in India also as Bapu (Gujarati: બાપુ bāpu or 'Father'). He is officially honoured in India as the Father of the Nation; his birthday, 2 October, is commemorated there as Gandhi Jayanti, a national holiday, and worldwide as the International Day of Non-Violence.
Did you know that Gandhi was inspired by Henry David Thoreau? That both of them inspired Dr Martin Luther King? That the civil rights movement to have the rights and liberties of black Americans was WON by non-violent means in spite of the use of guns by the opposition?
Does this show that guns solve problems? Nope. Does this show that guns force people to recognize the rights and liberties of others? Nope. It shows that people solve problems when they put away the guns and confront the problem.
The Middle East crisis is pretty complicated, but here are a few of the nations that have been hostile to Israel;
The question was not hostile neighbors, but ones that "vowed to destroy it" as said in Message 372
Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it. They have waged wars against it and attacked it in many ways throughout the years. Yet, 60 years on, Israel's still standing. This IS the evidence.
Perhaps you can list who those "most" are and provide evidence of it.
So just being hostile is not enough, nor have you provided evidence of intent to destroy. This should be simple to do if Legends assertions are based on facts.
Iran (I'm not sure if they ever fought Israel, but they are not kissing cousins)
Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
Sorry Legend, but you still just cannot see that your position is not supported by the evidence
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured in the victim's property? NO.
So? It includes assaults in and out of all different kinds of places. Places where people with gun permits can carry guns.
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured in the knowledge that the victim was armed? NO
Which is unknowable until a gun is advertised. People with permits to carry concealed weapons don't advertise, so this is irrelevant - because we can safely assume that in such situations the assaults occurred in any event.
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured while the victim had the opportunity and legal authority to use their gun? NO
Again this silly complaint is irrelevant and a red herring. We can safely assume that the assaults still occurred (or they wouldn't be in the stats) and we can still note that the stats still show an INVERSE correlation to the ability to posses guns.
If what you claimed were true - that possession of guns prevents the owners from being assaulted - then this should show up in a reduction of assaults where guns are legal to carry.
No amount of massaging the data can bring one even close to that conclusion. All you have left for cognitive dissonance then is to deny that the statistics are irrelevant to the argument.
So what's the relevance of those stats in establishing the value of armed deterrent? NONE.
Well done. You can't counter the evidence, therefore you must decide that they are irrelevant.
Curiously, despite saying this you continue to post statistics without taking all contributing factors into account.
Using stats for the countries where YOU AGREED that they were comparable because of the similarity of the countries to reduce the effect of those other factors:
I take your point about poverty and other factors that affect these stats. However, let it be known that I was the first one who insisted on comparing similar societies like the UK / US.
A position I concur with. The US, Canada and the UK are similar societies.
There are no official statistics that show how many crimes are prevented because of armed deterrent,as far as I can see. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen - it only means that there are enough people prejudiced against guns, like you, who refuse point-blank to even consider the possibility. That's what I'm asking that we do in this thread: put the blinkers down for a minute and consider how gun ownership would benefit the ordinary citizen.
There are no stats in spite of a very active pro-gun lobby and proselytizing by the NRA ... and you put the absence of stats down to the gun-control side not considering it? Do you understand the term confirmation bias?
Perhaps the evidence doesn't exist because the effect is too small to be significant.
Did you consider what proportion of US murders take place in states with more restrictive gun laws as opposed to more lax ones? NO you didn't.
Which is irrelevant for states next to states with lax gun laws and where there is absolutely no means to check traffic from one state to the next regarding the transportation of guns.
This is why the statistics for Hawaii were relevant, as noted in Message 212:
Meanwhile we continue to see statistics that show more gun control results in fewer deaths by guns:
quote:FIGURES showing that Hawaii is last in the country in gun deaths per capita should put to rest the notion that an armed citizenry is safer. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering an appeal of a decision that, if upheld, could dismantle strong gun controls that have contributed to Hawaii's low number of deaths by firearms.
An analysis by the Violence Policy Center of 2005 data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that Hawaii is lowest in both household gun ownership -- 9.7 percent -- and gun deaths per 100,000 -- 2.2. The national per capita gun death rate was 10.3 per 100,000.
The organization, which supports gun controls, points out that Southern and Western states with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates. The top five states had household gun ownership rates ranging from 46.4 percent to 60.6 percent and gun death rates of 16.2 percent to 19 percent.
It still looks to me like the statistics support gun controls, rather than any personal benefit to having\carrying a gun.
So it looks like I've already considered "what proportion of US murders take place in states with more restrictive gun laws as opposed to more lax ones" and STILL found that the statistics favor gun controls for the maximum benefit of the population.
So what do these stats show, other than your anti-gun bias and your willingness to present stats out of context if they serve your argument? Nothing!
They are not out of context and I have no anti-gun bias. I personally see no need to carry\have a gun, I do not see them as a panacea or a way to solve problems.
I have participated in non-violent protests for civil rights that have accomplished more to protect the rights and liberties of people, than any activity you can point to where a gun was used, and I did it for the benefit of others, not for my personal benefit.
I used to marvel that my grandfather grew up when the major transportation was horse and buggy, before cars were developed, and he died after man had walked on the moon. Now I can say that I grew up when blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, and now we have a black man sitting in the whitehouse at the head of the country.
You talk about defending rights and liberties, I have done it, and I did not need guns to do it.
Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
Hi Legend, still having trouble I see.
I see that you chose the former.
Actually I chose both. Without evidence your position is just your assertions, whining about how much better you would be protected if you only had a gun. Without evidence it is just one opinion against another.
Tnere are no stats in spite of a very active anti-gun lobby and proselytizing by the liberal left: If armed deterrent didn't work they would have published the stats so this absence *must mean* that armed deterrent does work!
Now THAT's confirmation bias! If you're going to use the term at least do it properly.
Except that there are statistics that show that there is no benefit ot society as a whole. Let me quote Hawaii again, as it seems you missed it:
quote::FIGURES showing that Hawaii is last in the country in gun deaths per capita should put to rest the notion that an armed citizenry is safer.
This is what all the compared statistics for the US, Canada and the UK show as well. Gun control advocates do not need to show the kind of statistics you can't find, because their concern is the benefit to society as a whole, not your personal selfish self. The statistics show increased danger to people IN GENERAL if guns are more readily available.
Which evidence? The irrelevant one or the one presented out of context?
The evidence that shows a benefit to society as a whole to have gun controls.
If the victim is assaulted in public in a state which prohibits carrying concealed weapons then the attacker would have good reason to believe that the victim is unarmed. Yes, the assault will take place but it *bears no relevance to the argument of whether guns cause violence or prevent it*.
And as I have pointed out several times, but you have ignored, in a state where guns are allowed, the assaulter is likely to have a gun and use it in the assault. This isn't just "what-if" though, this position is borne out by the statistics comparing the US to Canada and the UK. Overall there are the same number of assaults but more assaults that involve guns and the death of the victim.
So you don't know how many assaults occured despite the victim being armed yet you still continue to support the idea that guns cause more violence not reduce it. Bizzare!
Because OVERALL violence is reduced and there is greater benefit to society as a whole with gun controls -- a position that IS supported by the evidence.
First, I claimed that possession of guns would reduce the number of owners assaulted in their own home not assaulted in general. That's just one of the reasons why your assault statistics are pretty much irrelevant. Second, possession of guns is meaningless unless the owners have the authority to fire them in defense. Did you factor that in before you drew your conclusion? No you didn't! How many assaults occured in publlic in states which prohibit carrying a weapon? You have no idea! Yet you're happily wallowing in the self-righteous glee gained by providing some irrelevant statistics, out of context and ignoring a number of variables, which -in your mind- show that your belief about guns is the 'right' one.
What I see is that the statistics show an OVERALL increase in gun deaths during assaults, because more assaults are made with guns. I look at the total picture, the benefit to society as a whole, and the evidence shows a benefit to society as a whole to have gun controls.
Just because I agreed that we should be comparing similar countries doesn't mean that you can go ahead and present irrelevant and out-of-context data for those countries!
So you keep whining, yet you haven't pointed out what is out of context.
|ABE|
Overall benefit shown to society as a whole is NOT irrelevant nor is it out of context. Why? because it shows that for every instance where an assault may have been averted by a victim having a gun, another was enabled by an assaulter having a gun. Trying to use only one side of the statistics - as you want to do, or imply that gun control advocates should do - is using confirmation bias to ignore the other side of the statistics. By using the statistics for society as a whole this confirmation bias is avoided. Let's review again:
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people # 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people # 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
So we have essentially the same number of assaults per person for similar cultures and legal systems, and where reporting of such crimes is likely to be comparable.
The US is the highest of these three, but they are essentially equal, and thus the only logical conclusion is that if gun possession has averted any assaults, it has enabled an equal or slightly greater number of assaults to be made by gun bearing perps, assaults that would not be committed if guns were not available. For gun control advocates it does not matter whether the demographics of assault shifts, but whether there is an overall benefit to society to having gun controls.
From just the number of assaults being compared we do not see a benefit to gun controls: the numbers of assaults doesn't change. However, that is not the full picture:
# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people # 44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people # 46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people # 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people # 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
We see that there are more murders (as a sub-category of assaults) and that there are more murders accomplished with guns in the US.
Thus, even though the number of assaults is the same, the violence of the assaults is increased overall, and the number of deaths of citizens is increased, both in general and in specific due to the availability of guns to the population as a whole - assaulter and victim. This is not a good trend for society as a whole, and thus good gun controls are a better solution than making guns available to both victims and perps.
|/ABE|
You want to protect yourself? Quit your whining and learn self defense, so that you won't have your nose broken.
You want to protect you home? Quit your whining and get a security system - and get the added benefit of protection while you are out of the house. Curiously, installing security systems shows HAS been shown to reduce burglary.
The statistics show that the rights and liberties of people are better protected by proper gun controls, that more citizens are able to walk the streets without needing to carry a gun when gun controls are in place.
I notice you have no argument about Gandhi, Dr MLK, and the restoration of rights and liberties to millions of Indian and American citizens through non-violent means. I take this as confirmation that defense of rights and liberties does not need to involve firearms, and thus that your argument of using firearms to defend rights and liberties is refuted, as has your position that allowing citizens to carry guns results in an overall benefit to society.
Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it. They have waged wars against it and attacked it in many ways throughout the years. Yet, 60 years on, Israel's still standing. This IS the evidence.
First off, that's your comment, with my reply quoted below it.
Second, care to identify those neighbors that existed when Israel was created, rather than governments or other organizations that have come into existence since.
quote:Scholars differ as to when Hezbollah came to be a distinct entity. Some organizations list the official formation of the group as early as 1982,[22] in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.[4] Diaz and Newman maintain however, that Hezbollah remained an amalgamation of various violent Shi’a activists until as late as 1985.[23] Another source states that it was formed by supporters of Sheikh Ragheb Harb, a leader of the southern Shiite resistance, who was killed by Israelis in 1984.[24]
Note how this really makes Hezbollah an argument for MY position rather than yours: it is a response to the policies of Israel.
Hi Hyroglyphx, lets try to keep the facts straight eh?
Eh???? You've never heard of the Six-Day War?
Of course. Another example of Israeli aggression. From your link:
quote:The Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967 was a war between the Israel army and the armies of the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Arab states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria also contributed troops and arms.[6] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.
Following numerous border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbours, particularly Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula in May 1967.[7] The peacekeeping force had been stationed there since 1957, following a British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt which was launched during the Suez Crisis.[8] Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border[9] and closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, receiving strong support from other Arab countries.[10]
The Israeli cabinet decided to launch a general offensive on May 23, immediately upon receiving the news that the straits would be closed.
Started by Israel, yes? In 1967, yes? MANY years after Israel was formed, yes? In response to what? Egypt's response to an invasion of Egypt, an invasion that Israel willingly participated in, yes?
Israeli armed aggression keeps taking chunks of arab lands by force, and you think arabs are the only ones at fault, that Israel is only defending their rights?
quote:Israel ... is a developed state in Western Asia located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan in the east, and Egypt on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.[5]
There's the four existing neighbors, now identified for you folk. Now if anyone can provide documents that 3 or 4 vowed to destroy Israel ... then this would apply to the statement by Legend that I am contesting:
Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it.
Bold for emphasis.
So far, all I have seen is that armed aggression begets armed aggression, and that Israels policy of two eyes for every eye has led to increased aggression.
I've also suggested that people provide evidence from when Israel was first formed. Many think it was formed by the UN following the second world war, but this is not quite correct:
quote:The Palestine Mandate,[1] or Mandate for Palestine,[2] or British Mandate of Palestine was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine formally approved by the League of Nations in June 1922, based on a draft by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalized British rule in Palestine from 1917-1948.
The preamble of the mandate declared:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[3]
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[4]
The borders of the British Mandate included what is now Israel and Jordan:
With Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Arabia as the original neighbors. The original UN 1947 proposed partition was
1948: The UN partitioned British Palestine into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Palestine). Six Arab countries declared war on Israel; Israel survived with borders different than those drawn by the UN; these are now known as the "pre-1967 borders." Palestine did not survive; the East Bank and West Bank of the Jordan River were taken over by Jordan, and the Gaza Strip was taken over by Egypt. Many Palestinians became refugees in the 1948 war; they have still not been resettled and are the subject of the current debate on "right of return."
Notice that modern Israel is larger than the original partition size, that most of what was Palestine has really been taken over by Jordan, and that Israel has increased it's borders since then, and they continue to make enemies rather than friends.
The topic is Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also (rather than just) gun control, so I see the whole issue of the middle east actually being on target and on topic as a PRIME example of the irrationality of revenge. It's why we still have problems in that area.
I was just answering your question the way you posed it. The way your question was framed was that no one until modern-day terror groups have opposed Israel, which, of course, is an absurdity.
No, the question was in response to a comment by Legend. This is the second or third time I have pointed this out, and this is significant because without that comment you don't have the context of my question.
The question is NOT about what countries opposed Israel's formation, but which neighbors vowed to destroy it. When you talk about Hezbollah, the problem is (1) they were formed long after Israel declared independence, which was long after the joint jewish & palestinian state was formed following WW1, and (2) it was formed in response to specific aggression by Israel.
The modern state of Iran (which you tried to use earlier, when I pointed out to you before that you were off track on your response) is also not applicable because (a) they are not neighbors and (b) they did not have that government when Israel was formed.
To answer the question is easy: provide documentation from 1948 of a THEN neighbor that vowed to destroy Israel.
It's a small point, but I insist on accurate historical documented information, not just Faux News Sound Bites. If the claims were made, you should be able to find them.
After the Holocaust there were several propositions made for where to place the displaced Jews. No one wanted them there. Giving them back the land from which they came from seemed the most reasonable thing.
This is a common misunderstanding. Let me repeat my last post on this so you can have another go at the facts:
quote:The Palestine Mandate,[1] or Mandate for Palestine,[2] or British Mandate of Palestine was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine formally approved by the League of Nations in June 1922, based on a draft by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalized British rule in Palestine from 1917-1948.
The preamble of the mandate declared:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[3]
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[4]
That's 1917, after WW1 NOT 1948 after WW2. What was objected to in 1948 was the mass immigration of thousands of jews from around the world, and the (brand new) UN partitioning of Palestine.
Legend writes:
Message 331 ... Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it. ...
Now, can anyone document which of Israel's (four) neighbors have vowed to destroy Israel?
Or is this another example of Faux News type hyperbole and exaggeration of a conflict that is perpetuated and empowered by Israel's policy of revenge.
They were then attacked by a multitude of nations who resisted their presence in the Middle East. What exactly should the young Israeli's have done? Let them kill them?
The question is whether Israels policies are perpetuating the conflict, rather than leading to a solution.
I say they are perpetuating it. The evidence is as simple as the fact that Hezbollah did not exist until many years after Israel was formed, and that the policies of Israel led directly to the formation of Hezbollah, and today lead directly to new recruits every year.
Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
Hi Legend, seems you are still caught in that cognitive dissonance + confirmation bias feedback loop.
Your statistics show overall homicide/murder by firearms. The context is: the percentage of those crimes commited against armed victims.
As I said before, when you only look at (a) ONE part of the data, the part that benefits your argument, and (b) ignore or DENY to other part of the data, particularly where it destroys your argument, then you are guilty of (a) confirmation bias and (b) cognitive dissonance.
The context is the overall benefit to society, not just to those law-abiding citizens that carry guns, and CERTAINLY it includes the ADDITIONAL assaults caused by perps that carry guns. What you don't seem to include in your analysis is that every change you enact to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to legally carry guns makes it easier for NON-law-abiding citizens to legally carry guns and possibly makes even MORE likely that they will do so. Ignoring this tendency is fatal to a proper evaluation of the situation.
The percentage of those crimes commited in the knowledge that the victim might be armed.
This has already been addressed. Lets go back to those statistics you just can't seem to understand, one more time, and we'll look at the first one from Message 57, as it deals specifically with this issue:
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people # 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people # 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
So we have essentially the same number of assaults per person for similar cultures and legal systems, and where reporting of such crimes is likely to be comparable.
(color for emphasis)
(now adding bold and larger font to emphasis the point).
The number of assaults is NOT CHANGED when gun controls are relaxed: people that feel they need to use assaults will continue to use assaults. If anything these statistics show a very small INCREASE in assaults with lax gun controls.
The percentage of those crimes commited in the knowledge that the victim might be armed.
Precisely WHY the perps are MORE likely to be armed and dangerous when making assaults, and WHY assaults are more violent on average - shooting, stabbing or knocking out the victims first, rather than waiting to find out - in areas where guns are freely available. This is why the proportion of assaults that are murders is increased.
How many of those crimes have been commited in self-defense, victim turning the tables on the attacker?
Self-defense is not listed under murder -- if it is a legitimate case of self-defense. If it is someone blowing away a petty thief that had no weapon and was not trying to harm the victim, then there could be a case that the victim over-reacted with excessive force.
Murders would be assaults where the victims are killed rather than just beaten up - killed first, in case they have a gun tucked away somewhere.
My evidence is the well-founded principle of armed deterrence.
Assertion, unsupported by any evidence, is not evidence. Also completely invalidated by the use of non-violent means to defend rights and liberties, as used by Thoreau, Gandhi, and Dr MLK, all of whom, by the way, were not deterred in the slightest by the armed people against them.
My evidence is the significant percentage of criminals admitting that they are deterred by armed victims.
Which is hearsay and anecdotal, and it ignores the increase in criminal that arm themselves, and use those arms to continue their criminal behavior. It ignores the increase in the numbers of criminals because they feel "better protected" (enabled) with a gun. Take car-jacking as an example: a crime that is enabled by the use of guns (firearms were used in ~1/2 of all car-jackings).
My evidence is the lower percentage of burglary and property crime in the US.
Which ignores (doesn't correct for) the likely difference in the usage of security systems. The evidence shows that there is a measurable deterrent effect of installing security systems.
Nor does it include the prevalence of other crimes committed in place of burglary and property crime, such as muggins and car-jackings, that are enabled by the use of guns.
Your evidence is the higher percentage of armed murder in the US.
Nope, my evidence is that the number of assaults is virtually unchanged whether guns are available or not, that this is because of economic factors rather than the degree of protection individuals may have.
My evidence is that the PROPORTION of assaults are more violent, and more likely to end in the death of the victim, where guns are available. An increase in the number of victims killed is likely if the assaulter believes the victim may have a gun, so rather than have a deterrent effect it has an increased violence effect.
My evidence is that the PROPORTION of assaults that involve murder of the victims by firearms is undeniably, significantly and unequivocally increased, when guns are made more available.
My evidence is that the net effect to society is a greater death rate for victims of crime, without ANY demonstrable significant effect on the rate of crime.
And I've said many times that without taking into account other factors that affect murder rates, these figures by themselves don't mean much.
Which is just more whining without substance if you don't provide figures and documents showing what those other factors are and how they affect the information presented. Those "other factors" could just as easily make your position even more untenable than it is - you just assume that they will be counter to the evidence that shows high gun controls = more living victims.
Could it just be that this increase is attributed to the US gun culture that's been ingrained into US society for over two centuries now? You know, when there was very little law or order and the way to solve your differences was with a gun.
And even then, people who "solved their differences" with a gun were still subject to laws and justice. Towns had sheriffs and judges, and trials involved juries, lawyers, evidence ... murder and robbery were still murder and robbery, against the law, and punishable offenses.
The same culture that encouraged people to take and use guns to liberate their country?
Which is what makes enacting minimal gun controls very difficult, thus resulting in the increase in gun usage by criminals that causes the increased harm to society. England does not have that problem, so why would you want to give up to gun controls you have, as they result in far fewer deaths of victims and far less murders by firearms?
Or could it just be that this increase is attributed to other unexamined factors, such as gang prevalence which is much higher in the US than the UK?
Curiously, whether the criminals are in gangs or not does not of itself change the numbers of criminals or victims. You need to show what these "unexplained factors" are and then demonstrate that there is a significant effect on the statistics as a direct result.
Unless you you can account for such variables all you have is some general statistics and loads of wishful thinking.
So then you should actually provide evidence for what these factors are and how they affect the results. Waving your hands and saying that there could be other factors involved is not in any way demonstrating that there ARE other factors, factors that SIGNIFICANTLY affect the data (and which has somehow been ignored by all the people compiling all the statistics - which you will now claim is due to their "antigun bias" conspiracy), and demonstrate HOW it affects the data.
You claim it: you support it. Waving your hands and invoking mysterious unknown factors is not an argument.
I'm not arguing about Gandhi, Dr MLK, or even Dr Dre as it adds no value to this debate. The fact that some people have succeeded by non-violent means bears no relevance to the argument about the value of armed deterrence and is, in any case, overshadowed by the hundreds of thousands of instances where armed struggle defended rights and liberties very effectively. American War of Independence, anyone?
Blimey, if you really think that bringing up Ghandi and Dr Whoever strengthens your argument you must be really desperate!
Ah -- so you have no answer to the reality that non-violent solutions are available and effective in defending the rights and liberties of VAST numbers of people: the numbers of blacks in the US in the 50's exceeded the population of the colonies in 1776, the population of India was even greater.
Your inability to deal with the reality of non-violent methods is just another example of your cognitive dissonance: you can't believe that you can solve your problem without resorting to violence.
Wars don't bring peace, nor do they create anything more than temporary solution to problems. People in civilized societies don't employ wars to force others to live their way, they resolve conflicts by other means. What you don't seem to understand is that how you deal with problems, whether on a personal, local or regional basis, is all tied together, and that attitudes of revenge and retaliation IN PLACE of equality, justice, rights and liberties are self-defeating in the long run. Wanting to engage in vigilante cowboy justice at home translates to the behavior of Israel in the middle east.
Israel vs N.Ireland - you lost that argument: N.Ireland solved their problem by putting the guns down, Israel still has their problem.
Gandhi vs revolution - you lost that argument: Gandhi solved the rights and liberty problem of India by non-violent means, without guns, and without the bloodshed of revolution.
Dr. MLK vs revolution - you lost that argument: Dr. MLK solved the rights and liberty problem of blacks in the US by non-violent means, without guns, and without the bloodshed of revolution.
Gun access vs gun controls - you lost that argument: there is a net LOSS rather than any kind of gain when you compare results in the society as a whole.
I've already been approached by several members cautioning us not to go down this road. If you can justify it to the moderators, I'll follow your lead.
It is on the topic of two wrongs don't make a right, it is on the topic of the irrationality of revenge, and it is about the same mental position as gun control taken to the world stage.
Your post concerning Israel is inflammatory and extremely biased, as if Palestinians can do no wrong and Israelies can do no right. The reality of the situation is that neither side is guiltless and neither side should front all the blame. The situation in the Middle East is complex and trying to decipher that topic on a very specific topic in comparison is probably not justified.
I've not said the Palestinians are blameless, just that the policy of Israel is self-perpetuating the war in the middle east.
It's just that I would think after some 60 plus years of FAILURE to resolve the issue, that a different method MIGHT be tried.
Is it biased and inflammatory to point out the historical FACT that Hezbollah came into existence, continues to be in existence, and is growing, is due to the behavior of Israel?
I therefore think that if we are going to discuss this issue, we should probably create a new thread.
Congratulations. You just proved that increased gun ownership doesn't increase violence. Thank you for supporting my point.
Curiously, you just once again proved confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, because that is not a valid conclusion from the data.
The data shows that there are the same NUMBER of assaults, not that there is the same LEVEL of violence. The rest of the data -- the parts you conveniently ignore because they refute your conclusion -- show that the VIOLENCE of the attacks is GREATER when guns are allowed.
SHOW ME evidence for this assertion!
Again? Just start at Message 57 ... and read the facts.
RAZD writes:
Curiously, whether the criminals are in gangs or not does not of itself change the numbers of criminals or victims.
Except that you fail to show that these crimes would NOT be committed without the existence of the gangs, which is what you need to do to counter my argument that the existence of gangs does not necessarily change the number of incidents in a significant way.
Curiously, your link does not claim a direct connection between gangs and violence. Interestingly, you also ignore the evidence of the contribution of easy access to guns that gangs also provide, and which is mentioned IN YOUR LINK:
quote:Increasing violence among teenagers and other youths appears to have contributed to a nationwide crime spike, the Justice Department said Tuesday.
Gangs and gun violence are partly to blame for the rise in crime that is on pace to increase for the second straight year, says Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a prepared speech. ... FBI data from last fall show violent crimes, including murders and robberies, rose by 3.7% nationwide during the first six months of 2006. Those findings came on top of a 2.2% crime hike in 2005 the first increase since 2001. ...
That a growing number of offenders appear to be younger, and their crimes more violent, and that laws in some states provide few, if any, tough penalties on juvenile offenders. ...
Offenses committed by people using firearms pose a major threat not only to communities, but also to police. So-called "straw purchases," where gun owners buy their firearms through a go-between is an area of concern.
The Justice Department plans to distribute $18 million in grants nationwide this year to prevent and reduce illegal gun sales and other firearms crimes.
(color and underline for emphasis).
Did you notice the emphasis on greater gun control measures as part of the solution?
How much of a part is apparently contributed? Fascinatingly, even an increase 3.7% of violent murders and robberies (if ALL the increase was due to gangs) is NOT a significant escalation, when the difference between the US and the UK is order of magnitude greater (Message 57 again):
[#] Number of assaults about the same in each country.
[#] Number of murders about 3 times higher in the US than in Canada and the UK.
[#] Number of murders by firearms about 5.5 times higher in the US than in Canada, and about 28 times higher in the US than in the UK.
[#] Proportion of murders committed with guns is 65% in the US, 34% in Canada and 7.3% in the UK.
Of course one can't directly compare an increase in violent crime with the level of violent crime, but increasing the US level by 3.7% (regardless of whether due to lax gun controls, gang violence or other as yet unidentified factors) still leaves you with total assaults:
{# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people} x 1.037 = 7.84929151 per 1000 people.
Still not significantly different from Canada or the UK.
Next, if we increase the proportion of murders by firearm in the UK by 3.7% we still get:
{# 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people} x 1.037 = 0.00106374423 per 1000 people.
Which is STILL so far below US and Canada:
quote:
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people # 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
This still shows hat the murder by firearm rate is STILL 5 times higher in Canada than in the modified UK and 28 times higher in the US than in the modified UK.
This is not a significant difference, even assuming ALL the increase is due ONLY to gang violence. Once again your evidence does NOT support your assertion.
Do you have any evidence of a significant factor?
quote:An extra 180 officers from the Targeted Response Unit were despatched every night to areas plagued by gang violence. As a result, killings fell most sharply in the most dangerous neighbourhoods, with murder down 55 per cent in one district and by 52 per cent in another.
Amusingly, this reduction is NOT due to an increase in gun ownership by people in the neighborhoods, but by increased GUN CONTROL by using trained and protected police officers to (temporarily?) suppress violence in the neighborhoods.
What you are advocating is that people in these neighborhoods should be able to arm themselves and that this will somehow reduce the crimes in these areas -- do you really think this is a practical solution in "the most dangerous neighborhoods" in the US?
You can support your assertion that guns provide a Net LOSS to society by simply showing that:...
... there are more murders, more violence and more use of guns in similar crimes where guns are relatively easy to obtain.
Once again, see Message 57. You still have failed to rebut the evidence, mostly because you fail to address it.
™ Version 4.2
