|
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. |
On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 08:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 08:04 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 TheSwamp wrote:
I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary. Me? Yes. Everyone? No. On February 21 2012 07:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:26 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics. How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons  Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch". Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary. Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better. Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada. She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference! Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about? My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous! So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool?
The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O
Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand...
I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies:
Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare
Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke.
|
On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:On February 21 2012 08:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 08:04 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 TheSwamp wrote:
I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary. Me? Yes. Everyone? No. On February 21 2012 07:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:26 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
This isn't a political issue, its a cultural one. In the U.S. virtually everyone either owns a gun or knows someone who does, and many people have shot one. I've shot guns, I do it with friends. Its something that's a part of our culture. There are other cultures who's fear of guns is just as ingrained. So you can have your irrational fear of something you've never experienced and we can do our own thing. Okay? Many of you will probably think we're just a bunch of rednecks, including Americans who are from a big city, but if I we're to take you shooting, I guarantee that you would lose this sentiment. Very few of the people I know that own or shoot guns are people I would consider being even close to a redneck, and these people vary greatly in their views on politics. How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch". Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary. Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better. Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada. She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference! Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about? My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous! So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool? The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand... I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies: Show nested quote +Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke.
You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying.
|
On February 21 2012 11:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:On February 21 2012 08:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 08:04 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 TheSwamp wrote:
I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary. Me? Yes. Everyone? No. On February 21 2012 07:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:[quote] How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch". Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary. Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better. Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada. She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference! Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about? My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous! So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool? The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand... I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies: Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke. You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying.
No, I recognize that there's no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of murders. What I'm saying is, this is because of the other variables that are in play, notably the level of equality, which plays a bigger role, thus PERHAPS*** making the effect of the number of guns in a country less perceptible, statistically, as having an effect on the number of homicides.
In other words, it's less relevant than other variables and thus not easy to perceive in statistics which compare fundamentally different countries.
Edit: Before it gets mentioned, no this is not a fact and I am not presenting it as such. It merely my belief which cannot be calculated with available statistics. The contrary cannot be supported by statistics either, and so "we don't know".
Additional note: Maybe I'm wrong and there are statistics proving it. But it needs to be a research over time over one particular region.
|
On February 21 2012 11:44 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:On February 21 2012 08:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 08:04 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 TheSwamp wrote:
I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary. Me? Yes. Everyone? No. On February 21 2012 07:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
[quote]
Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however. I'm not quite sure why you don't like Americans, but that's likely irrational as well. Perhaps you've never experienced an American either? The unknown is often quite scary. Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better. Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada. She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference! Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about? My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous! So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool? The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand... I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies: Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke. You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying. No, I recognize that there's no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of murders. What I'm saying is, this is because of the other variables that are in play, notably the level of equality, which plays a bigger role, thus PERHAPS*** making the effect of the number of guns in a country less perceptible, statistically, on the number of homicides.
You originally cited national homicide rates to support gun control. When I cited Swiss statistics to demonstrate such an argument is bogus and that there are other factors in play, you effectively recognized my point, but only to refute the idea that my stat supports gun ownership. But my intent was not to support gun ownership, it was simply to invalidate your argument. You completely 100% backtracked and missed the point.
|
On February 21 2012 11:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:On February 21 2012 08:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 08:04 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 TheSwamp wrote:
I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary. Me? Yes. Everyone? No. On February 21 2012 07:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:42 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Well my gf is a Texan who lives here, so I've "experienced an American" (no pun intended). I'm not afraid of guns, but when I walk around in Montreal, people are not supposed to carry guns or knives on their person. If everyone carried a gun, I'd be worried. Now if I bump into someone by mistake and they happen to be particularly aggressive (it happens), most likely they only have fists - so my odds are better. Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada. She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference! Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about? My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous! So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool? The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand... I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies: Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke. You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying. No, I recognize that there's no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of murders. What I'm saying is, this is because of the other variables that are in play, notably the level of equality, which plays a bigger role, thus PERHAPS*** making the effect of the number of guns in a country less perceptible, statistically, on the number of homicides. You originally cited national homicide rates to support gun control. When I cited Swiss statistics to demonstrate such an argument is bogus and that there are other factors in play, you effectively recognized my point, but only to refute the idea that my stat supports gun ownership. But my intent was not to support gun ownership, it was simply to invalidate your argument. You completely 100% backtracked and missed the point.
Switzerland is another country, correct. So once again, read this:
+ Show Spoiler +Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare
Your point REFUSES to take conjuncture into consideration. SWITZERLAND IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. Apples and oranges ffs.
Note: I don't support gun control.
|
On February 21 2012 11:54 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:On February 21 2012 08:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 08:04 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 TheSwamp wrote:
I used to be against people being able to carry a concealed weapon, but after shooting a gun for myself I have changed my mind. If you understand what carrying a gun means, the danger and responsibility, you will only use it when absolutely necessary. Me? Yes. Everyone? No. On February 21 2012 07:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
[quote]
Why are you dating her? She's one of the few "fun ones"? I've never been worried about an aggressive person carrying a gun, your perception of this country is truly odd. Let me give you a hint, its basically the same as that one country called Canada. She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference! Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about? My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous! So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool? The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand... I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies: Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke. You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying. No, I recognize that there's no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of murders. What I'm saying is, this is because of the other variables that are in play, notably the level of equality, which plays a bigger role, thus PERHAPS*** making the effect of the number of guns in a country less perceptible, statistically, on the number of homicides. You originally cited national homicide rates to support gun control. When I cited Swiss statistics to demonstrate such an argument is bogus and that there are other factors in play, you effectively recognized my point, but only to refute the idea that my stat supports gun ownership. But my intent was not to support gun ownership, it was simply to invalidate your argument. You completely 100% backtracked and missed the point. Switzerland is another country, correct. So once again, read this: + Show Spoiler +Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Your point REFUSES to take conjuncture into consideration. SWITZERLAND IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. Apples and oranges ffs.
You still don't get it. You took my point and hijacked it as your own. It completely invalidates your previous claims. Your arguing against your past self.
|
On February 21 2012 12:02 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:54 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:On February 21 2012 08:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 08:04 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 07:49 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Me? Yes. Everyone? No.
[quote]
She's one of the many fun ones (a particularly likable person actually!). As for aggressive persons carrying weapons, like I said, your country's homicide rate is three times higher than Canada, it's a big difference! Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about? My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous! So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool? The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand... I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies: Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke. You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying. No, I recognize that there's no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of murders. What I'm saying is, this is because of the other variables that are in play, notably the level of equality, which plays a bigger role, thus PERHAPS*** making the effect of the number of guns in a country less perceptible, statistically, on the number of homicides. You originally cited national homicide rates to support gun control. When I cited Swiss statistics to demonstrate such an argument is bogus and that there are other factors in play, you effectively recognized my point, but only to refute the idea that my stat supports gun ownership. But my intent was not to support gun ownership, it was simply to invalidate your argument. You completely 100% backtracked and missed the point. Switzerland is another country, correct. So once again, read this: + Show Spoiler +Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Your point REFUSES to take conjuncture into consideration. SWITZERLAND IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. Apples and oranges ffs. You still don't get it. You took my point and hijacked it as your own. It completely invalidates your previous claims. Your arguing against your past self.
"You don't understand"
"No you don't understand"
Let's go back to the beginning then. Here's where I'm at.
Me: I think that having a lot of guns increases the number of homicides in a country
You: Here are some stats, the Swiss have a lot of guns but not many homicides.
Me: That's because they're largely an egalitarian (a word which you didn't know) society, the US isn't. You can't compare the US to Switzerland.
What'd I miss?
|
On the guns vs alcohol argument a few pages back:
I believe the numbers were 30,000 deaths from guns vs 100,000 deaths from alcohol. The appealing argument to make is why focus on guns when alcohol is a significantly larger problem in terms of deaths?
That is a very simplistic argument. Firstly alcohol and guns are simply factors in a death, not necessarily the sole, or even primary, cause. There are deaths which involve both alcohol and guns. How do you count them in your figures? Would the removal of one or both have prevented the death? How do you calculate what percentage of what cause lead to the death?
So, if you were to ban guns and alcohol, assuming it is feasible to ban them, what percentage of those deaths would be prevented? To quote Liquid Tyler, no one can calculate that shit. It's far too complicated. Then you run up against the fact that prohibiting firearms and alcohol is extremely unlikely to completely remove them from society. There will always be a black market for such things.
IMO the question is not what is the best way to reduce deaths. To say that prohibiting alcohol/guns/cars/illicit drugs would save a certain number of lives is just wrong. There is no way to calculate it wih any degree of certainty.
To do so you need to:
1. Become god
2. Create an alternate universe where the only difference is the removal of guns/alcohol/whatever.
3. Collect and collate the statistics (easy to do because you're god)
4. Present your findings
The question is a moral one. Is it right to remove the right of someone to responsibly drink alcohol because other people get drunk and kill people with their cars? Is it right to restrict the right of one person to own a gun for self defense or recreation because another person may steal that gun and kill someone with it? Is it right to restrict the freedom of one person to hopefully prevent someone else using that freedom to do harm?
|
On February 21 2012 12:05 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:02 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:54 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:On February 21 2012 08:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 08:04 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
[quote]
Oh, so you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes, I'm glad to hear that. Also, there are reasons the homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher. Gangs, drug prohibition, etc, things that are all interconnected and the only clear thing is that its not because people own guns. Homicide is still a rare occurrence in the U.S. It being three times higher isn't a reason to be afraid to go out. That is yet another irrational fear. Furthermore, Switzerland has the second highest rate of private gun ownership and yet your country has a homicide rate 3 times higher. Wtf is that all about? My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous! So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool? The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand... I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies: Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke. You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying. No, I recognize that there's no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of murders. What I'm saying is, this is because of the other variables that are in play, notably the level of equality, which plays a bigger role, thus PERHAPS*** making the effect of the number of guns in a country less perceptible, statistically, on the number of homicides. You originally cited national homicide rates to support gun control. When I cited Swiss statistics to demonstrate such an argument is bogus and that there are other factors in play, you effectively recognized my point, but only to refute the idea that my stat supports gun ownership. But my intent was not to support gun ownership, it was simply to invalidate your argument. You completely 100% backtracked and missed the point. Switzerland is another country, correct. So once again, read this: + Show Spoiler +Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Your point REFUSES to take conjuncture into consideration. SWITZERLAND IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. Apples and oranges ffs. You still don't get it. You took my point and hijacked it as your own. It completely invalidates your previous claims. Your arguing against your past self. "You don't understand" "No you don't understand" Let's go back to the beginning then. Here's where I'm at. Me: I think that having a lot of guns increases the number of homicides in a country You: Here are some stats, the Swiss have a lot of guns but not many homicides. Me: That's because they're largely an egalitarian (a word which you didn't know) society, the US isn't. You can't compare the US to Switzerland. What'd I miss?
You: I think that having a lot of guns increases the number of homicides in a country. The U.S. has a homicide rate three times that of Canada.
Me: That statistic is meaningless, the Swiss have a lot of guns yet Canada has three times as many homicides as they do.
You: That's because they're largely an egalitarian (a word which you didn't know) society, the US isn't. You can't compare the US to Switzerland.
Look at that. Look at you arguing against yourself.
|
On February 21 2012 12:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:05 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 12:02 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:54 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:On February 21 2012 08:14 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
My opinion changed? Based on what, my statement that I look in and I don't think "what a fun bunch"? I'm saying I'm not a big fan of the society, the gross nationalism, the conservatism and reckless liberalism (and the fact that people don't know what liberalism means). I'm not a big fan of the insane hatred of the moderate left. I like many individuals, but I don't like many of your values. And I'm not impressed with the homicide rate which is the highest in the industrialized world.
As for the stats, I talked about them fairly in depth earlier in the thread. Switzerland has a lot of guns and they don't shoot each other - what's up with a crazy leftist country that knows better than to shoot everyone? Kudos to them. It just tells me that I may have a good reason for not wanting Americans to have firearms but the Swiss can have them if they want - they know how to handle them.
I'm thinking, as far as strong democracies go, egalitarian countries tend to have lower homicide rates. So give those egalitarian countries a whole bunch of guns if they want them, since they won't murder each other anyway. But in the US, the right is pushing for more inequality... Dangerous! So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool? The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand... I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies: Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke. You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying. No, I recognize that there's no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of murders. What I'm saying is, this is because of the other variables that are in play, notably the level of equality, which plays a bigger role, thus PERHAPS*** making the effect of the number of guns in a country less perceptible, statistically, on the number of homicides. You originally cited national homicide rates to support gun control. When I cited Swiss statistics to demonstrate such an argument is bogus and that there are other factors in play, you effectively recognized my point, but only to refute the idea that my stat supports gun ownership. But my intent was not to support gun ownership, it was simply to invalidate your argument. You completely 100% backtracked and missed the point. Switzerland is another country, correct. So once again, read this: + Show Spoiler +Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Your point REFUSES to take conjuncture into consideration. SWITZERLAND IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. Apples and oranges ffs. You still don't get it. You took my point and hijacked it as your own. It completely invalidates your previous claims. Your arguing against your past self. "You don't understand" "No you don't understand" Let's go back to the beginning then. Here's where I'm at. Me: I think that having a lot of guns increases the number of homicides in a country You: Here are some stats, the Swiss have a lot of guns but not many homicides. Me: That's because they're largely an egalitarian (a word which you didn't know) society, the US isn't. You can't compare the US to Switzerland. What'd I miss? You: I think that having a lot of guns increases the number of homicides in a country. The U.S. has a homicide rate three times that of Canada. Me: That statistic is meaningless, the Swiss have a lot of guns yet Canada has three times as many homicides as they do. You: That's because they're largely an egalitarian (a word which you didn't know) society, the US isn't. You can't compare the US to Switzerland. Look at that. Look at you arguing against yourself.
Well, frankly, no. =/
I'm trying to think up a simple way to explain statistics to you because you need it. Give me a minute.
|
On February 20 2012 09:04 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
For me personally I live a happier life knowing my neighbor does not own a gun.
I live a happier life knowing that I, my neighbors, and the police all have guns in their possession.
One time when I was in the UK, there were a dozen teenagers smashing some bikes chained to a light post. The police at the scene were afraid to leave their car to intervene for fear that some of the group would steal it. I witnessed it firsthand. This would not happen in the US.
|
To smokeyhoodoo:
You have three countries, country A and country B and country C. They consume a certain amount of money on videogames. All three countries have different average incomes.
Researchers decide to investigate what affects the amount of money spent on videogames, and gather statistics for all three countries. For the sake of argument, two factors are determined (in reality, there are thousands). It is found out that the average income and the amount of publicity that's on TV are responsible for a country's videogame consumption. More money, more games, more ads, more games. However, the average income has a significantly more importance than publicity.
A: $100 of video games per inhabitant, average income of "9", publicity frequency of "10"
B: $70 of video games per inhabitant, average income of "7", publicity frequency of "0"
C: $80 of video games per inhabitant, average income of "5", publicity frequency of "30"
Again for the sake of argument, for each point of income, the amount of video games consumed goes up by $10 on average, and for each point of frequency in advertisement, the amount of video games consumed goes up by $1.
A: Income is (9*10)= 90 + publicity (10*1)= 10 for a total of $100
B: Income is (7*10)= 70 + no publicity for a total of $70
C: Income is (5*10)= 50 + publicity (30*1)= $80
Basically:
- A makes the most money and has some publicity.
- B makes good money but has NO publicity at all
- C makes the least money but is continuously blasted with publicity
So the researcher might say, we found out that the amount of publicity plays a role on their overall video game consumption. Then someone (you) would come up and say: "Blasphemy, I looked at the numbers alright! Country C has by far the most publicity, and yet, games sell less than they do in country A and B!"
And the researcher might add, why of course good sir, as it turns out, income also plays an even bigger role on their overall video game consumption. And you just might retort: "But that's wrong! I looked at the number, and Country B's income is higher than country C, and yet it sells less games"
Then, in reality, the researcher would add more variables. Video games are kind of a big deal in South Korea but not so much in Sri Lanka, and so on so forth. The thing is, there are so many variables, you can't quantify them like I did in my example, so you can't gauge them. And that, my friend, is why social sciences suck.
With love from your friendly political "science" masters student.
|
It's hilarious how you keep comparing switzerland with USA.
Just search Switzerland on google image ...
You can give to this peaceful population bazookas and napalm bombs they'll never use it. Maybe once a year a retarded swiss will blow up a cow with a hand grenade, that is all.
|
On February 21 2012 12:18 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 12:05 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 12:02 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:54 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 10:47 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So what your saying is that you just backtracked on your whole argument about guns being the reason why there are more homicides in the United States than other countries, and are merely just a tool?
The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand... I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies: Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke. You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying. No, I recognize that there's no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of murders. What I'm saying is, this is because of the other variables that are in play, notably the level of equality, which plays a bigger role, thus PERHAPS*** making the effect of the number of guns in a country less perceptible, statistically, on the number of homicides. You originally cited national homicide rates to support gun control. When I cited Swiss statistics to demonstrate such an argument is bogus and that there are other factors in play, you effectively recognized my point, but only to refute the idea that my stat supports gun ownership. But my intent was not to support gun ownership, it was simply to invalidate your argument. You completely 100% backtracked and missed the point. Switzerland is another country, correct. So once again, read this: + Show Spoiler +Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Your point REFUSES to take conjuncture into consideration. SWITZERLAND IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. Apples and oranges ffs. You still don't get it. You took my point and hijacked it as your own. It completely invalidates your previous claims. Your arguing against your past self. "You don't understand" "No you don't understand" Let's go back to the beginning then. Here's where I'm at. Me: I think that having a lot of guns increases the number of homicides in a country You: Here are some stats, the Swiss have a lot of guns but not many homicides. Me: That's because they're largely an egalitarian (a word which you didn't know) society, the US isn't. You can't compare the US to Switzerland. What'd I miss? You: I think that having a lot of guns increases the number of homicides in a country. The U.S. has a homicide rate three times that of Canada. Me: That statistic is meaningless, the Swiss have a lot of guns yet Canada has three times as many homicides as they do. You: That's because they're largely an egalitarian (a word which you didn't know) society, the US isn't. You can't compare the US to Switzerland. Look at that. Look at you arguing against yourself. Well, frankly, no. =/ I'm trying to think up a simple way to explain statistics to you because you need it. Give me a minute.
You seriously think I don't understand? Your entire argument is MY ORIGINAL POINT. Your initial claim of the U.S. having a higher homicide rate than Canada is what is at issue. Apply your argument to YOUR INITIAL CLAIM.
THINK!
|
On February 21 2012 12:58 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 12:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 12:05 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 12:02 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:54 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 11:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 21 2012 11:29 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
The whole post I pointed at showed that you can't directly compare countries, did you even read? O_O
Honestly, you ignored everything I said. It's unbelievable. You call me a tool and you can't even understand...
I'll cite myself again, and honestly I should cite this every time, otherwise I'll be taken out of context by phonies:
[quote]
Stop outright insulting people whom you disagree with, you joke. You're missing the point. You're precisely guilty of that which your saying. No, I recognize that there's no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of murders. What I'm saying is, this is because of the other variables that are in play, notably the level of equality, which plays a bigger role, thus PERHAPS*** making the effect of the number of guns in a country less perceptible, statistically, on the number of homicides. You originally cited national homicide rates to support gun control. When I cited Swiss statistics to demonstrate such an argument is bogus and that there are other factors in play, you effectively recognized my point, but only to refute the idea that my stat supports gun ownership. But my intent was not to support gun ownership, it was simply to invalidate your argument. You completely 100% backtracked and missed the point. Switzerland is another country, correct. So once again, read this: + Show Spoiler +Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare Your point REFUSES to take conjuncture into consideration. SWITZERLAND IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. Apples and oranges ffs. You still don't get it. You took my point and hijacked it as your own. It completely invalidates your previous claims. Your arguing against your past self. "You don't understand" "No you don't understand" Let's go back to the beginning then. Here's where I'm at. Me: I think that having a lot of guns increases the number of homicides in a country You: Here are some stats, the Swiss have a lot of guns but not many homicides. Me: That's because they're largely an egalitarian (a word which you didn't know) society, the US isn't. You can't compare the US to Switzerland. What'd I miss? You: I think that having a lot of guns increases the number of homicides in a country. The U.S. has a homicide rate three times that of Canada. Me: That statistic is meaningless, the Swiss have a lot of guns yet Canada has three times as many homicides as they do. You: That's because they're largely an egalitarian (a word which you didn't know) society, the US isn't. You can't compare the US to Switzerland. Look at that. Look at you arguing against yourself. Well, frankly, no. =/ I'm trying to think up a simple way to explain statistics to you because you need it. Give me a minute. You seriously think I don't understand? Your entire argument is MY ORIGINAL POINT. Your initial claim of the U.S. having a higher homicide rate than Canada is what is at issue. Apply your argument to YOUR INITIAL CLAIM. THINK!
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that my "logic" leads to: "since we can't analytically, directly compare 2 countries to understand one specific phenomenon, we can't compare countries in any way at all"
That'd be silly.
|
Quick question. I don't own a gun.
But i was wondering the reason behind everybody's ownership...
is it for self defense, hunting or collecting? Just curious. I don't see a reason for me to have one since I live in a safe neighborhood with low violent crime and I dont hunt! 
|
The only way I see gun culture changing in the U.S. is by a similar method to our views on smoking. In the past, no one would really give you the stink-eye for being a smoker, but as anti-smoking campaigns, taxes...etc have ramped up, the prevalence of smoking has gone down. Part of it is due to greater awareness of the statistical risks of smoking, but I'd say more of it is just due to the social pressure placed upon smokers by non-smokers who almost feel like it's their civic duty to at least tacitly disapprove of smoking (be it through body language or whatever).
In the same vein, lowered gun ownership in the U.S. would probably only happen if more people would see gun ownership as something irrational and fear-motivated, and gun owners were viewed as weekend warriors with a little too much enthusiasm for weaponry or wannabe vigilantes...but that isn't how gun ownership is viewed in many parts of this country.
|
I think knives, long blades, and tasers (and other "nonlethal" weapons) should be legal to open carry. Long non-automatic guns should be allowed, but only on private property, or for hunting use , or [obviously] in transit (sorta like alcohol laws).
Pistols and [semi]automatic weapons should be illegal for civilian use.
On February 21 2012 07:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:How's it irrational. There's nothing irrational in being uncomfortable with lethal weapons Especially not when we look at the US - we don't think "oh what a fun bunch". Are you afraid of knives as well? Probably not because you've been around and used them. It is, however, a lethal weapon. Fear of it is irrational, unless its clear someone intends to kill you with it. That's not to say you shouldn't be careful and responsible with it however.
I'm not afraid of knives because namely becase they are a close-range weapon that I could run away from, plus they're not as lethal.
My reasoning behind knives being legal is that:they are a close-range weapon, generally less-lethal, and FAR LESS capable of dealing with multiple people (robbing a bank, killing a bunch of classmates/coworkers, etc.).
|
On February 21 2012 14:18 Xapti wrote:
I think knives, long blades, and tasers (and other "nonlethal" weapons) should be legal to open carry. Long non-automatic guns should be allowed, but only on private property, or for hunting use , or [obviously] in transit (sorta like alcohol laws).
Pistols and [semi]automatic weapons should be illegal for civilian use.
Yea i'll just carry my machete around town, that sounds awfully similar to rwanda
|
Assuming that knives are frequently carried around in Rwanda (something I do not know), are you implying that carrying knives around is what makes Rwanda a bad place?
If you don't think that's true then there's no point in saying what you said. If you do think it's true, you should explain it more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
