|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Zurich15325 Posts
On July 21 2012 23:46 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:41 Archybaldie wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:30 Rassy wrote:
So what are the reasons to keep the guns?
Self-defence, culture/tradition, and the fact that bearing arms is a "god given right" in the constitution. + Show Spoiler +"The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people. A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier. The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference. Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people. The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it. So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government. The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States. When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous. Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons) Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_founding_fathers_include_the_Second_Amendment#ixzz21HOtuNoP" With the strength of modern military, would a milita even be viable as military technology increases? Also if the militia is "obselete" via modern day advantages. Would that make that law antiquated and obselete? Second these queries I would like to hear the answer. Honestly I don't think in the event of an oppressive government in the US, the citizenry could muster up and organize enough force to fight the military. Maybe in a few areas they could gain control. For a bit.
This has been discussed extensively in this thread already, starting here : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13596221
|
On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference.
Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot.
|
On July 22 2012 00:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:58 Thenerf wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 Uhnno wrote:On July 21 2012 23:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Rassy wrote:
NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:30. Posts 1134
Thats just nonsense.
The demand wont increase because you make the suply illegal?
The amount of people who stop with the activity because it is illegal is way bigger then the amount that starts with it because it now is illegal
Making something illegal will decrease that activity,by making it more difficult.
Thats the whole point of law enforcement.
If this was not the case then we should just stop funding the police.
Off course people will always find what the look for, the point is to make them look harder.
Make them look so hard that manny of them will give up looking. You obviously have no idea how the last 50-60 years has went. Every attempt at prohibiting something has increased it's demand. You can't bring a single example that say's that's not the case. Hell even the war on terror which is comparable has seen a massive increase since it's inception. War on drugs? same thing, alcohol prohibition? same thing... You are now saying prohibit weapons, the only people being hurt are the people who want to legally obtain something to defend themselves, how ignorant can you be to think "bad guys won't get it" -.- "make them look so hard that many of them will give up looking" <---- Not a single example in history has ever proven this true. There is a reason I can walk downtown where I live and find cocaine/crack/bath salts. With this logic you are oversimplifying matters. Alcolhol prohibition led to how it was, because people were corrupt as hell. Alcohol itself is a consumption good, easily produced by amateurs and citizens. Good luck building your own automatic rifles in your basement. Also, claiming that every form of prohibition increases demand is silly. If that is true, then the demand of every European country with prohibited gun possesion would have insanely high demand right? Newsflash, it is not. You should know "Gun Production" started in the United States at least as an industry. What I'm trying to say is building guns is very easy to do and yes we would start building our own in our houses. It's pretty much the reason we don't ban anything, somehow we end up building a black market for it until it becomes legal again. People just don't understand basic economics it seems... If the demand exists, supply for it will too. The question is would we rather it fund the government and legal organizations or the black market? Because that is the only thing you can really ask yourself, law abiding citizens will be the only ones not owning weapons. Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:03 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:54 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:49 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:47 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Stupidest thing I've ever read. I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc. The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain. I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader). Ya that was the point hence the big friendly block letters and the "this is simple"... it's designed for "12 yr olds/simpletons" who don't educate themselves. Again, bashing my choice of presentation is fine, but throw some actual substance in with your style bashing. What are you talking about -.- "substance" ? I don't need a block of text that is trying to sensationalize everything to point out that you write like a 5th grader. I agreed with your main point (however hard it was to find) where it is used to defend a nation against oppressive governments, what other substance do you want? -.- opps forgot to define substance for the simpletons. it's when even if you want to resort to attacking the way I presented my argument, you should also include "substance" which is information and discussion associated with the purpose of the argument and topic of the thread. i.e yes you sound cool by bashing the way I chose to present my argument, but you would be even cooler if you added something more than a 5th grader's response i.e. "YOU WRITE BADS AND IS 5TH GRADES" HAHAHA substance is when there is "value" to your post beyond a 5th grader's tactics of name calling. You keep blocking your texts and over exaggerating your statements. I understand what substance refers to, but as far as what I said, I needed to add nothing else. I agreed that countries require some defense against oppressive governments and said the reason he thinks you're an idiot (note "stupidest thing I've ever read") is because you presented your point, again since I have to repeat myself so much, like a 5th grader. Subjectivity without objectivity. You can keep insulting me, but my first three posts were about the same as this one, so nothing more to add for "substance". Unless of course you want me to go HAHAHAHA and USE CAPITALS while in a discussion. Your ability to comprehend statements is saddening. lol this isn't even about you which is the funniest part. you tried to justify the guy who said "This is stupid....." and put NOTHING else in his post. this isn't about you. every single post you made has "substance" so i don't know why you are trying to defend yourself. I'm talking about the guy who DIDN'T put substance into his post and simply resorted to bashing. Disagree with me completely that's great I have respect for everyone's opinions EVEN if you think my post was bad. ALL I was saying is don't just bash.....try to evolve the discussion. The ball keeps rolling -.- ITS HARD to evolve a CONVERSATION when you TYPE LIKE THIS because you are INSECURE IN YOUR arguments POSITION. Calm down please, we don't need children over reacting in here.
I'm sure I have a typo in there you could talk about too. You win. I'm not playing the name calling game with you.
|
On July 22 2012 00:05 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:46 The KY wrote:On July 21 2012 23:41 Archybaldie wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:30 Rassy wrote:
So what are the reasons to keep the guns?
Self-defence, culture/tradition, and the fact that bearing arms is a "god given right" in the constitution. + Show Spoiler +"The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people. A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier. The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference. Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people. The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it. So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government. The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States. When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous. Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons) Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_founding_fathers_include_the_Second_Amendment#ixzz21HOtuNoP" With the strength of modern military, would a milita even be viable as military technology increases? Also if the militia is "obselete" via modern day advantages. Would that make that law antiquated and obselete? Second these queries I would like to hear the answer. Honestly I don't think in the event of an oppressive government in the US, the citizenry could muster up and organize enough force to fight the military. Maybe in a few areas they could gain control. For a bit. This has been discussed extensively in this thread already, starting here : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13596221
Read your comment, had a good laugh. The idea firstly that Americas army would start firing on it's own citizens baffles me to begin with, soldiers are people... Sure some may corrupt but you'd see dissension in the ranks if they ever were ordered against the population. I liked your recent use of Afghanistan, but even back farther into Vietnam you see the trend.
|
NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:55. Posts 1139
Hmm that list suprises me and its true.
europe:3.5/100k and north america 4.7/100k hommicides.
Only 35% higher in the usa wich is far lower then i expected.
Its odd though since i also found these statistics on wiki, wich compares homicides commited with firearms and overall homicide rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
this one gives a much larger difference between north america and for example england.
1.45/100k homicides from wich 0.12 by firearms in the uk
4.55/100k homicides from wich 2.97! by firearms in the usa
3 times as manny homicides and 25 times as manny homicides by firearms.
It is tempting (though off course false) to conclude that all the 3/100k extra murders in the usa are due to firearms.
Not sure what to make of it,statistics are notoriously misleading lol
Am not claiming 1 list is better or more "true" then the other btw! they both came from the same wiki.
Maybe a a part of the difference comes from taking england and the whole of europe though i still find the difference verry large and confusing.
|
On July 22 2012 00:09 Ezod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:58 Thenerf wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 Uhnno wrote:On July 21 2012 23:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Rassy wrote:
NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:30. Posts 1134
Thats just nonsense.
The demand wont increase because you make the suply illegal?
The amount of people who stop with the activity because it is illegal is way bigger then the amount that starts with it because it now is illegal
Making something illegal will decrease that activity,by making it more difficult.
Thats the whole point of law enforcement.
If this was not the case then we should just stop funding the police.
Off course people will always find what the look for, the point is to make them look harder.
Make them look so hard that manny of them will give up looking. You obviously have no idea how the last 50-60 years has went. Every attempt at prohibiting something has increased it's demand. You can't bring a single example that say's that's not the case. Hell even the war on terror which is comparable has seen a massive increase since it's inception. War on drugs? same thing, alcohol prohibition? same thing... You are now saying prohibit weapons, the only people being hurt are the people who want to legally obtain something to defend themselves, how ignorant can you be to think "bad guys won't get it" -.- "make them look so hard that many of them will give up looking" <---- Not a single example in history has ever proven this true. There is a reason I can walk downtown where I live and find cocaine/crack/bath salts. With this logic you are oversimplifying matters. Alcolhol prohibition led to how it was, because people were corrupt as hell. Alcohol itself is a consumption good, easily produced by amateurs and citizens. Good luck building your own automatic rifles in your basement. Also, claiming that every form of prohibition increases demand is silly. If that is true, then the demand of every European country with prohibited gun possesion would have insanely high demand right? Newsflash, it is not. You should know "Gun Production" started in the United States at least as an industry. What I'm trying to say is building guns is very easy to do and yes we would start building our own in our houses. It's pretty much the reason we don't ban anything, somehow we end up building a black market for it until it becomes legal again. People just don't understand basic economics it seems... If the demand exists, supply for it will too. The question is would we rather it fund the government and legal organizations or the black market? Because that is the only thing you can really ask yourself, law abiding citizens will be the only ones not owning weapons. On July 22 2012 00:03 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:54 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:49 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:47 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
[quote]
Stupidest thing I've ever read. I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc. The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain. I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader). Ya that was the point hence the big friendly block letters and the "this is simple"... it's designed for "12 yr olds/simpletons" who don't educate themselves. Again, bashing my choice of presentation is fine, but throw some actual substance in with your style bashing. What are you talking about -.- "substance" ? I don't need a block of text that is trying to sensationalize everything to point out that you write like a 5th grader. I agreed with your main point (however hard it was to find) where it is used to defend a nation against oppressive governments, what other substance do you want? -.- opps forgot to define substance for the simpletons. it's when even if you want to resort to attacking the way I presented my argument, you should also include "substance" which is information and discussion associated with the purpose of the argument and topic of the thread. i.e yes you sound cool by bashing the way I chose to present my argument, but you would be even cooler if you added something more than a 5th grader's response i.e. "YOU WRITE BADS AND IS 5TH GRADES" HAHAHA substance is when there is "value" to your post beyond a 5th grader's tactics of name calling. You keep blocking your texts and over exaggerating your statements. I understand what substance refers to, but as far as what I said, I needed to add nothing else. I agreed that countries require some defense against oppressive governments and said the reason he thinks you're an idiot (note "stupidest thing I've ever read") is because you presented your point, again since I have to repeat myself so much, like a 5th grader. Subjectivity without objectivity. You can keep insulting me, but my first three posts were about the same as this one, so nothing more to add for "substance". Unless of course you want me to go HAHAHAHA and USE CAPITALS while in a discussion. Your ability to comprehend statements is saddening. lol this isn't even about you which is the funniest part. you tried to justify the guy who said "This is stupid....." and put NOTHING else in his post. this isn't about you. every single post you made has "substance" so i don't know why you are trying to defend yourself. I'm talking about the guy who DIDN'T put substance into his post and simply resorted to bashing. Disagree with me completely that's great I have respect for everyone's opinions EVEN if you think my post was bad. ALL I was saying is don't just bash.....try to evolve the discussion. The ball keeps rolling -.- ITS HARD to evolve a CONVERSATION when you TYPE LIKE THIS because you are INSECURE IN YOUR arguments POSITION. Calm down please, we don't need children over reacting in here. I'm sure I have a typo in there you could talk about too.
You are now arguing semantics, all I said was the reason people think you are stupid (and I have to admit, I have come to that conclusion myself after the previous 4 posts) is because you type in a way which enables the viewer to come to the conclusion. You lack intelligence, so from now on you may reply to my posts but I will not banter with you.
On July 22 2012 00:11 Rassy wrote:NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:55. Posts 1139 Hmm that list suprises me and its true. europe:3.5/100k and north america 4.7/100k hommicides. Only 35% higher in the usa wich is far lower then i expected. Its odd though since i also found these statistics on wiki, wich compares homicides commited with firearms and overall homicide rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violencethis one gives a much larger difference between north america and for example england 1.45/100k homicides from wich 0.12 by firearms in the uk 4.55/100k homicides from wich 2.97! by firearms in the usa Not sure what to make of it,statistics are notoriously misleading lol
My list is "intentional homicides" so perhaps that's the difference? My point was that if you want to kill people, gun law or not, you will.
|
Guns will never protect against mass shootings, I've never read about a citizen who shot a murder-rampaging gunman before he could kill any more people. Fact is that no matter how much you arm yourself there will always be times when you are unprotected. Hell, even if you have a gun on you it doesn't matter if you get shot before you can pull it out. There is a fucking REASON to why these things don't happen in civilized countries (see most European countries) it's because guns are strictly controlled and only available to carry if you're a police officer or military/paramilitary.
Guns are bad m'kay? Americuuuurrrs who think that guns protect them are naive, gunloving, conservative republican assholes who are too narrow minded to see the truth, which is existing at this very moment in the rest of the world's countries where guns are prohibited, not available for purchase around every other corner.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 21 2012 23:22 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:11 The KY wrote:On July 21 2012 21:52 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 21:42 Roman666 wrote:On July 21 2012 21:24 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 21:19 hifriend wrote:On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. None of that will matter one bit if the government has the military on its side. It has mattered tons of time throughout history and didn't a few mid-eastern countries recently overthrow goverments with huge armed resistances little while back ya know I heard something about it.....Lerbia, Egykt... I forget....OH WELL BACK TO VIDEO GAMES AND HOT POCKETS TORLOLOLOLOLOL While 20 years ago whole Eastern Europe liberated itself without major military clashes. In Poland during transformation no shots were fired at all, those were fired 10 years earlier during martial law. And it weren't the citizens who did the shooting, but militia did by firing on unarmed miners. While it mattered tons of time throughout history, there are other ways. Thank You for posting something with substance. This is 100% correct. and in every single situation we EVER encounter it should always be resolved without violence. diplomacy is ALWAYS the best option. But in reality after diplomacy fails what do you do then? Violence should be the LAST option but also you have to realize it doesn't always work. It's like the fire extinguisher in your house. Most of them are never ever used, but you have them "just in case". This is exactly why the founding fathers made the constitution the way they did. That's why America has always been a beacon of freedom and liberty. it's very hard to oppress America because of that document. The ability to remove tryanical goverments is built into the very fabric of America. So the annual school, workplace or public mass shooting sprees that occur in the US are because of it's culture? Tell me again about the beacon of liberty stuff. It just seems a bit mad to me to give people easy access to weapons that can kill lots of other people very quickly and easily. Because peppered among law abiding citizens are lunatics and psychopaths. This argument is so stupid. If you think someone planning to go and kill a bunch of people can't get weapons illegally then you should really reevaluate your position... America is the news hub of the world, it also has 360 million people in it... BAD SHIT happens, negating the gun law or not won't help that. Do you know why the right to bear arms exists? It exists so that the population has the ability to defend itself and throw over oppressive government bodies, Swiitzerland has one of the LOWEST crime rates, and most civilians have an AR-15 laying in there house... Don't be so naive to think "gun laws" cause violence or create a scenario where it is easier. You want to kill someone? A lot of people? There are a shit ton of ways, I doubt those bottled explosives he planted were bought at a store, yet there he is... setting them up. And if you want a gun? How do you think the hoodrats and kids in the ghetto get there hands on guns? They don't have a gun permit. I Addressed this in the edit, to a point. I'm not saying it's like 'no one is allowed guns now we live in paradise yaaaay'. The point is, do you know how the hoodrats over here get their hands on guns? Most of the time, they don't. It should be obvious that it's easier to illegally purchase a firearm in a country where it is easy to legally acquire one. As for stupid arguments, 'there are other ways to kill multiple people' seems to qualify.
I think just about anyone sane and not overly paranoid agrees that guns shouldn't be quite as easy to legally own as they are. The number of people in the US that own guns is staggering, but the amount of people who are opposed to any kind of gun control for fear of "zomg oppresive government" or whatever shit are a very vocal minority. They're out there, but it's not like everyone thinks that way or even close to it.
Personally I am all for stricter laws as far as gun ownership goes, and I realize that other countries have had success banning guns altogether but the sheer number of guns in the US make it pretty much impossible to remove all of them. If tomorrow the government decided to ban all guns from private citizens and confiscate guns ... Criminals would STILL have them, still be able to buy black market guns for quite awhile, and 50 years from now the odd gun would still be showing up from people that refused to turn them in. I think that
|
On July 22 2012 00:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:09 Ezod wrote:On July 22 2012 00:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:58 Thenerf wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 Uhnno wrote:On July 21 2012 23:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Rassy wrote:
NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:30. Posts 1134
Thats just nonsense.
The demand wont increase because you make the suply illegal?
The amount of people who stop with the activity because it is illegal is way bigger then the amount that starts with it because it now is illegal
Making something illegal will decrease that activity,by making it more difficult.
Thats the whole point of law enforcement.
If this was not the case then we should just stop funding the police.
Off course people will always find what the look for, the point is to make them look harder.
Make them look so hard that manny of them will give up looking. You obviously have no idea how the last 50-60 years has went. Every attempt at prohibiting something has increased it's demand. You can't bring a single example that say's that's not the case. Hell even the war on terror which is comparable has seen a massive increase since it's inception. War on drugs? same thing, alcohol prohibition? same thing... You are now saying prohibit weapons, the only people being hurt are the people who want to legally obtain something to defend themselves, how ignorant can you be to think "bad guys won't get it" -.- "make them look so hard that many of them will give up looking" <---- Not a single example in history has ever proven this true. There is a reason I can walk downtown where I live and find cocaine/crack/bath salts. With this logic you are oversimplifying matters. Alcolhol prohibition led to how it was, because people were corrupt as hell. Alcohol itself is a consumption good, easily produced by amateurs and citizens. Good luck building your own automatic rifles in your basement. Also, claiming that every form of prohibition increases demand is silly. If that is true, then the demand of every European country with prohibited gun possesion would have insanely high demand right? Newsflash, it is not. You should know "Gun Production" started in the United States at least as an industry. What I'm trying to say is building guns is very easy to do and yes we would start building our own in our houses. It's pretty much the reason we don't ban anything, somehow we end up building a black market for it until it becomes legal again. People just don't understand basic economics it seems... If the demand exists, supply for it will too. The question is would we rather it fund the government and legal organizations or the black market? Because that is the only thing you can really ask yourself, law abiding citizens will be the only ones not owning weapons. On July 22 2012 00:03 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:54 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:49 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:47 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:
[quote]
I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc.
The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain. I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader). Ya that was the point hence the big friendly block letters and the "this is simple"... it's designed for "12 yr olds/simpletons" who don't educate themselves. Again, bashing my choice of presentation is fine, but throw some actual substance in with your style bashing. What are you talking about -.- "substance" ? I don't need a block of text that is trying to sensationalize everything to point out that you write like a 5th grader. I agreed with your main point (however hard it was to find) where it is used to defend a nation against oppressive governments, what other substance do you want? -.- opps forgot to define substance for the simpletons. it's when even if you want to resort to attacking the way I presented my argument, you should also include "substance" which is information and discussion associated with the purpose of the argument and topic of the thread. i.e yes you sound cool by bashing the way I chose to present my argument, but you would be even cooler if you added something more than a 5th grader's response i.e. "YOU WRITE BADS AND IS 5TH GRADES" HAHAHA substance is when there is "value" to your post beyond a 5th grader's tactics of name calling. You keep blocking your texts and over exaggerating your statements. I understand what substance refers to, but as far as what I said, I needed to add nothing else. I agreed that countries require some defense against oppressive governments and said the reason he thinks you're an idiot (note "stupidest thing I've ever read") is because you presented your point, again since I have to repeat myself so much, like a 5th grader. Subjectivity without objectivity. You can keep insulting me, but my first three posts were about the same as this one, so nothing more to add for "substance". Unless of course you want me to go HAHAHAHA and USE CAPITALS while in a discussion. Your ability to comprehend statements is saddening. lol this isn't even about you which is the funniest part. you tried to justify the guy who said "This is stupid....." and put NOTHING else in his post. this isn't about you. every single post you made has "substance" so i don't know why you are trying to defend yourself. I'm talking about the guy who DIDN'T put substance into his post and simply resorted to bashing. Disagree with me completely that's great I have respect for everyone's opinions EVEN if you think my post was bad. ALL I was saying is don't just bash.....try to evolve the discussion. The ball keeps rolling -.- ITS HARD to evolve a CONVERSATION when you TYPE LIKE THIS because you are INSECURE IN YOUR arguments POSITION. Calm down please, we don't need children over reacting in here. I'm sure I have a typo in there you could talk about too. You are now arguing semantics, all I said was the reason people think you are stupid (and I have to admit, I have come to that conclusion myself after the previous 4 posts) is because you type in a way which enables the viewer to come to the conclusion. You lack intelligence, so from now on you may reply to my posts but I will not banter with you. Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:11 Rassy wrote:NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:55. Posts 1139 Hmm that list suprises me and its true. europe:3.5/100k and north america 4.7/100k hommicides. Only 35% higher in the usa wich is far lower then i expected. Its odd though since i also found these statistics on wiki, wich compares homicides commited with firearms and overall homicide rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violencethis one gives a much larger difference between north america and for example england 1.45/100k homicides from wich 0.12 by firearms in the uk 4.55/100k homicides from wich 2.97! by firearms in the usa Not sure what to make of it,statistics are notoriously misleading lol My list is "intentional homicides" so perhaps that's the difference? My point was that if you want to kill people, gun law or not, you will.
People keep saying this but is clearly not true. Guns make killing people easier. When something is easy as opposed to hard, you are more both more likely to attempt it and more likely to succeed. You can argue about how much more likeIy but apart from that I would think that this is self-evident. Is there some sort of reasoning I am missing here?
|
Well that devolved quickly into "lol I don't understand the situation in America so if you disagree wih me you're an idiot!"
|
On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot.
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US.
|
On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US.
And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo.
|
In absolute terms it looks insignificant but the difference is not just between 1.5 and 4.5/100k
Thats on a year to year basis, if we on average become 80 years old it becomes 120/100k and 360/100k
If you then say the average family has 20 members, then it becomes 2400/100k vs 7200/100k
2.4% change in england that one of your family members will die by murder in their lifetime,7.2% change in the usa.
Off course this is a bit misleading calculation but huge differences in small numbers do have a significant effect at one point.
|
On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo.
I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750. I may be misinterpreting this though.
|
On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US.
In the US context, the difference between 1.2 and 4.8 amounts to 11000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 700 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number.
On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750
You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 4 fold increase.
|
On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750
I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference.
It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference".
|
On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase.
Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding.
So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
states that it is only approx 3
And wait, your first part regarding 110000ish homicides, can you please reference that number? That seems a bit ridiculous because if one is 1 and the other is 4 that means 100,000 vs 25,000 (1/4th) so obviously it amounts to a larger number but math wise it is still a 1/4 ratio implying that 4 people die for every 1.
On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference".
Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers.
|
On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3
That was the one i used.
63 mil x 1.2 / 100k = 756
63 mil x 4.8 / 100k = 3024
Edit: Again, i used the deaths/100k persons to calculate how many died per year in a country with the UK population size. I compared US and UK rates on a 63 million population...
|
On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3
1.23 vs 4.8
1.23 * 3 = 3.69 You have to multiply, not add up. It's about 3.9 times bigger.
|
On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers.
4.8/1.2= 4.
You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times more likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
