Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 60,209 Views
  • 1,682 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-20 13:37:37 Reply

At 4/20/13 01:16 PM, test-object wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're a bad person if you want to own one. It's just that the "why" should be reasonable. Is America or your neighbourhood truly in such a state of decay that without a gun you are done for like, let's say, small African towns?

I think the vast majority of "why" reasons are reasonable. These include:

* Hunting
* Target/skeet shooting
* Collecting
* Self-defense

Now, for the self-defense portion...I have lived in cities. I have had my house broken into...twice. Both times I used my gun defensively...and without firing a shot.

I also know many cops...and they all say that they cannot stop bad stuff from happening. They cannot be everywhere at once...and are seldom where they are needed. Over 90% of the time they arrive on-scene to make a report and see the victim to the ambulance.

So...if the stakes are your life (or that of your children and spouse), don't you think you should provide all possible layers of protection?


I try looking at discussions and reactions in contrasts and it just seems to me America is very, very paranoid.

I don't think it is paranoia. I think it is healthy realism. I live in a rural area where I have even less police protection than in an urban environment...as well as critters that could hurt my dogs or myself and my wife.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-20 13:51:38 Reply

At 4/20/13 01:29 PM, TheMason wrote:
But I have not seen the tenacity or level of ignorance displayed by them that the sheep on the gun-control side seem to wear as a badge of honor. I don't know how many of them are proud that they have never touched a gun...nor are they willing to learn.

that's because doing so would challenge their perception of reality, which, to most people who can't think for themselves is akin to sacrilege.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-20 13:53:24 Reply

At 4/20/13 02:23 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
At 4/19/13 10:19 PM, Elfer wrote: After observing US-centric gun control debates for a number of years, I've concluded that the problem is not that you have too many guns or not enough guns, it's that your society (both those for and opposed) fetishizes guns in a ridiculous way.
Really, you don't think it has to do with certain unique social and economic factors?

Let me clarify: I think the US has a gun problem and a violence problem, but they're not the same thing. Solving one won't solve the other. They've gotten tangled up in one another, sure, but you won't have a good solution by somehow removing all guns from existence, nor by giving everyone a gun.

Guns aren't a god-given natural right, nor are they a magic wand that gives the holder dominion over life and death. They're just things that can cause damage to other things at a distance. Focusing so much on them every time someone gets shot ignores the real problem.

test-object
test-object
  • Member since: Aug. 26, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 12
Artist
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-20 14:03:51 Reply

At 4/20/13 01:20 PM, TheMason wrote: I'm unsure of what the 'rule of the scariest' is. So please...explain.

Not much to it... Kind of like treating a dog by either threatening to hit as opposed to rewarding good behaviour.

.is because the irrational lizard-brain part of your personality sees it and thinks: "danger...stay away".

I think so and I believe that's for many people the case. Doesn't help that every time we get to see a person defending guns, he's old, defensive and/or has horrible, polarizing arguments.

I'm a gun person. But I am also:

I'm now far more understanding of your position. This is where I feel gun control would come in well (again, personally). It individualizes people as opposed to grouping them. Gun ownership, dependant of valid arguments as opposed to just allowing everyone to get one sounds far more intelligent. Often I get the feeling many gun-owners understand 'control' as 'ban'. If people live in a nice neighbourhood and need to own a gun with no reason other than "family protection", I feel you're not allowed to have one at all, ESPECIALLY when you have children around.

Not really. A person's chance of surviving a gun shot wound is 95% if they make it to a hospital. And very few people die at the scene. Overall...only about 20-25% of all GSW victims die.

It's still 20-25% though. Let's not trivialize that number.

At 4/20/13 02:23 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
What she was speaking of was the social and economic factors that have been shown to be the real causal factors of all crime. etc.

Alright, thanks for explaining.


A rather disgusting-looking git that should have been disposed of ages ago.

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-20 23:57:11 Reply

At 4/20/13 02:03 PM, test-object wrote:
Not much to it... Kind of like treating a dog by either threatening to hit as opposed to rewarding good behaviour.

if you only reward the dog, it gets out of control due to lack of discipline. if you only hit the dog, it becomes vicious. you have to punish and reward to shape behavior.

I'm now far more understanding of your position. This is where I feel gun control would come in well (again, personally). It individualizes people as opposed to grouping them. Gun ownership, dependant of valid arguments as opposed to just allowing everyone to get one sounds far more intelligent.

Problem is, what is a 'valid reason'? self defense? hunting? target practice? all of these, with the right logic can be thrown out as valid reasons. just get stronger doors and bar your windows to prevent break in, you don't need a gun. you can buy meat from the store, you don't need a gun. target practice? get a real hobby, you don't need a gun.

Often I get the feeling many gun-owners understand 'control' as 'ban'.

Not much difference. I'll spare the details so no one cries 'slippery slope' nonsense.

If people live in a nice neighbourhood and need to own a gun with no reason other than "family protection", I feel you're not allowed to have one at all, ESPECIALLY when you have children around.

hey guess what? houses in nice neighborhoods get broken into as well. Also, denying guns to people in 'nice neighborhoods' would effectively make them targets, as the criminals know that they are disarmed. There was once a suggestion that gun control advocates should place a sign in their yard stating that they have no guns in the home. No one does. wanna know why? that would make them an attractive target for burglars, rapists, thrill killers, and other psychopaths and crooks.

Also, the crime rate in the UK is MUCH higher than the us. wanna know why? the criminals have nothing to be afraid of. Even the law enforcement tells you, in the event of a home invasion, lock yourself in a room and hope to god the police either arrive before the person finds out, or leaves without finding you.

in America, we tell you to grab your gun, take the safety off, and if he finds you, blast him.

Is it any wonder why the UK has a far higher crime rate? I think not. it may say their crimes is 6 million commpares to 11 million, but remember, the US population is 3 times larger, meaning the UK has the higher crime rate. they have 1/3 of our population and commit half as many crimes.

It's still 20-25% though. Let's not trivialize that number.

That's still good odds. of course, the person's aim takes into factor too. a good shot can hit a person in the torso rather than the arm or shoulder, decreasing the odds of survival by a great margin. a crack shot with anatomical knowledge can hit the lungs and heart, making the odds of survival next to none.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Samuraikyo
Samuraikyo
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-21 07:24:09 Reply

At 4/20/13 11:57 PM, Korriken wrote:
At 4/20/13 02:03 PM, test-object wrote:
Also, the crime rate in the UK is MUCH higher than the us. wanna know why? the criminals have nothing to be afraid of. Even the law enforcement tells you, in the event of a home invasion, lock yourself in a room and hope to god the police either arrive before the person finds out, or leaves without finding you.

in America, we tell you to grab your gun, take the safety off, and if he finds you, blast him.

Is it any wonder why the UK has a far higher crime rate? I think not. it may say their crimes is 6 million commpares to 11 million, but remember, the US population is 3 times larger, meaning the UK has the higher crime rate. they have 1/3 of our population and commit half as many crimes.

No, the crime in the UK is not higher than the United States. They do their crime statistics different there. You can read about all of it and how it works here.

http://www.anxietyculture.com/crimescare.htm

http://www.mediahell.org/violence.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/23/comment.
prisonsandprobation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/murder-rate-lowest-
12-years

Their actual violent crimes or what would be considered violent by the United states is possibly one of the lowest in the entire world.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-21 11:21:20 Reply

When some of your links copy pasta from each other you probably shouldn't include them. I can't find an unbiased source for what you are trying to claim

violent crime is violent crime sorry if someone isn't seriously injured.

Samuraikyo
Samuraikyo
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-21 20:53:17 Reply

At 4/21/13 11:21 AM, Ceratisa wrote: When some of your links copy pasta from each other you probably shouldn't include them. I can't find an unbiased source for what you are trying to claim

violent crime is violent crime sorry if someone isn't seriously injured.

It isn't about just whether or not it's considered a violent crime or if someone is seriously injured or not. If you had read any of the links you would see how they document any of those crimes. Say 5 people are involved in a fight. It would be one incident in America but 5 incidents in the UK. Instead of just throwing away the information for it being "biased" why not disprove it, since it's so incredibly biased that you know it's unrealiable right away?

Prove me wrong, if it's wrong don't just dismiss it.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 01:40:05 Reply

I dismissed your evidence because two were different links with the same copy pasta

And we've actually already discussed what you brought up and proved it is either wrong or irrelevant.

Samuraikyo
Samuraikyo
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 02:27:51 Reply

At 4/22/13 01:40 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I dismissed your evidence because two were different links with the same copy pasta

And we've actually already discussed what you brought up and proved it is either wrong or irrelevant.

Just because it was the same information doesn't mean it can be dismissed. It just means I made a mistake in linking....

And where did you prove it wrong and irrelevant? I'm not reading through 29 pages to find your one post or someone else's post. It's NOT irrelevant since we need to use comparisons to countries that have had guns taken away or controlled as opposed to a country that has free gun use.

How is it wrong?

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 02:46:25 Reply

At 4/22/13 02:27 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
At 4/22/13 01:40 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I dismissed your evidence because two were different links with the same copy pasta

And we've actually already discussed what you brought up and proved it is either wrong or irrelevant.
Just because it was the same information doesn't mean it can be dismissed. It just means I made a mistake in linking....

And where did you prove it wrong and irrelevant? I'm not reading through 29 pages to find your one post or someone else's post. It's NOT irrelevant since we need to use comparisons to countries that have had guns taken away or controlled as opposed to a country that has free gun use.

How is it wrong?

Actually we have discussed the subject extensively and if you were honestly reading it the thread you wouldn't be saying all this, until then, just stop.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 02:51:27 Reply

You should also try reading the other big thread before this one became the one we were using (But yes unique social and economic factors to the US have been discussed here.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 03:17:10 Reply

At 4/21/13 07:24 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
Their actual violent crimes or what would be considered violent by the United states is possibly one of the lowest in the entire world.

The US is around 400 per 100k in violent crimes.

Britain (using US measures) is around 800 per 100k.

You're an idiot.

Have fun!

Samuraikyo
Samuraikyo
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 04:42:05 Reply

At 4/22/13 03:17 AM, Memorize wrote:
At 4/21/13 07:24 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
Their actual violent crimes or what would be considered violent by the United states is possibly one of the lowest in the entire world.
The US is around 400 per 100k in violent crimes.

Britain (using US measures) is around 800 per 100k.

You're an idiot.

Have fun!

Hmmmm....

Let's see, since the United States currently has a population of 300 million, and Britain has a population of 62 million. That would mean the United States has roughly 5 times the population and twice as many crimes according to that video.

And let's not even mention with my previous links showing those documented crimes are not counted the same as in the United States, where multiple people involved because multiple crimes instead of just one.

Let's do the math with just your numbers though:

1 million people would equal roughly 10, 100,000 people. The United States has 300 sets of these as opposed to only 62 for the UK. The UK is roughly showing only twice as many crimes more than the United States. There in lies the problem.

So let's see, United States has 400 crimes per 100,000 right? And it has 5 times the population? Let's figure this out:

United States: 300 x 400 = 120,000 crimes per million

UK: 62 x 800 = 49,600 crimes per million

Giving the United States THREE times more crime per citizens on the larger scale. Those numbers from the video are misinformed and completely taken out of context:

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checkin g-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-u s/

The UK has lower crime overall even with those numbers you provided which aren't being portrayed accurately. Did you even look up the numbers and how the UK documents crime before you posted?

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 08:07:28 Reply

At 4/22/13 04:42 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
The UK has lower crime overall even with those numbers you provided which aren't being portrayed accurately. Did you even look up the numbers and how the UK documents crime before you posted?

Do you have any idea what percentages mean?

Of course a more populated country is going to have more incidents of crime... they have a fucking higher population, moron.

That's why we break them down by percentages.

Would you rather live in a town of 100,000 with 500 violent crimes?
Or a city of 1,000,000 with 1,000 violent crimes?

In this very simple case, the city of 1,000,000 may have more crime, but they have a lower crime rate ( 100 per 100,000).

And the whole point of the video was to show you that even by US measurements, Britain still has at least double the violent crime rate of the US.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 08:08:02 Reply

At 4/22/13 04:42 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
At 4/22/13 03:17 AM, Memorize wrote:
At 4/21/13 07:24 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
Their actual violent crimes or what would be considered violent by the United states is possibly one of the lowest in the entire world.
The US is around 400 per 100k in violent crimes.

Britain (using US measures) is around 800 per 100k.

You're an idiot.

Have fun!
Hmmmm....

Let's see, since the United States currently has a population of 300 million, and Britain has a population of 62 million. That would mean the United States has roughly 5 times the population and twice as many crimes according to that video.

And let's not even mention with my previous links showing those documented crimes are not counted the same as in the United States, where multiple people involved because multiple crimes instead of just one.

Let's do the math with just your numbers though:

you suck at math. 800 per 100,000 will always be higher than 400 per 100,000 no matter how much more the population is. your calculations are horribly flawed. even as the population numbers change, 800 per 100,000 will still be more crimes per capita then 400 per 100,000. to figure out crimes per million you just multiply it by 10.

you calculations put America at 4,960 crimes per 100,000, which is WAY off.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 08:12:58 Reply

At 4/22/13 08:07 AM, Memorize wrote:
At 4/22/13 04:42 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
The UK has lower crime overall even with those numbers you provided which aren't being portrayed accurately. Did you even look up the numbers and how the UK documents crime before you posted?
And the whole point of the video was to show you that even by US measurements, Britain still has at least double the violent crime rate of the US.

Emphasis on crime RATE

And did you even watch the video?

It addresses your entire concern about differing methodologies.

Under the British methodology, they're crime rate is around 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000.

But when using the US methodology, they're crime rate is around 800 per 100,000 compared to the US 386 per 100,000.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 09:24:02 Reply

Per capita is used for a reason, because population isn't a valid measurement of statistical significance.

Samuraikyo
Samuraikyo
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 16:43:23 Reply

At 4/22/13 08:07 AM, Memorize wrote:
At 4/22/13 04:42 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
The UK has lower crime overall even with those numbers you provided which aren't being portrayed accurately. Did you even look up the numbers and how the UK documents crime before you posted?
Do you have any idea what percentages mean?

Of course a more populated country is going to have more incidents of crime... they have a fucking higher population, moron.

That's why we break them down by percentages.

Would you rather live in a town of 100,000 with 500 violent crimes?
Or a city of 1,000,000 with 1,000 violent crimes?

In this very simple case, the city of 1,000,000 may have more crime, but they have a lower crime rate ( 100 per 100,000).

And the whole point of the video was to show you that even by US measurements, Britain still has at least double the violent crime rate of the US.

But that's just what they are. %'s. There will be places where a group if 100,000 citizens are not commiting crimes in the 800 number but because another populated city where high crime occurs is adjusts this number to the 800 per 100,000 citizen which is unproveable in many locations. The high crime area do not spea for every 100,000 populated areas. The United States is a lot larger in size and thus it can not be possibly compared to Britain in terms of who commits the most crimes. Which you TRIED to prove through that video that Britain commits twice as many crimes as the united states. Which YOU HAVE to adjust for population and size of the country to even be granted such a suggestion.

The countries are so different, you can NOT make such a claim that it's worse there considering that 800 per 100,000 is falsely presented and the number is more like 250 per 100,000 (check the links), all I was merely proving is that the United States has much worse crime in all areas more than the UK. But for some reason you tried to tell me otherwise. You haven't read anything I posted.


you suck at math. 800 per 100,000 will always be higher than 400 per 100,000 no matter how much more the population is. your calculations are horribly flawed. even as the population numbers change, 800 per 100,000 will still be more crimes per capita then 400 per 100,000. to figure out crimes per million you just multiply it by 10.

you calculations put America at 4,960 crimes per 100,000, which is WAY off.

Apparently you didn't read my calculations. I did my numbers based on how many sets of 10 they have or millions in total. This is how I got my bigger numbers as per million by totaling all of it together. I don't even know how you got 4960. But the point is the same. The Uk does NOT have more crimes than the United States per area. Considering Britain is a lot smaller than the United States we have to adjust for this. There are more groups of 100,000 people living condensly than there are in the United States and that is why that figure is so high. It's not even the real number. Check the links.

The point was that even IF, which it isn't true, but even IF the UK has more crimes per 100,000 citizens which is such a cherry picking figure, The United States has more crime overall in more locations on a larger scale. Roughly three times that of the numbers YOU are choosing to give to the UK. In fact most charts will say the United States has twice as many crimes than the UK EVEN with the different way they document crimes:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-cr imes


Emphasis on crime RATE

And did you even watch the video?

It addresses your entire concern about differing methodologies.

Under the British methodology, they're crime rate is around 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000.

But when using the US methodology, they're crime rate is around 800 per 100,000 compared to the US 386 per 100,000.

That video isn't telling the whole truth. If you just do simply google searches or check my link, even the number of 800 is falsely represented. The number is less that 300 in many instances of adjusting that figure:

Let's not forget that the UK counts all people involved in said crime and treats them as seperate crimes. It has nothing to do with the crime itself but how many times they count it.

At 4/22/13 09:24 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Per capita is used for a reason, because population isn't a valid measurement of statistical significance.

Well that's crazy considering I proved that the United States has more crime overall, but people are trying to cherry pick and prove that the UK has TWICE AS MANY CRIMES than the United States which isn't true in the least. I mean you could say "well hey, that means more people commit crimes per person on a smaller scale, and they don't even have the population we do", but then i'll point you right back to the links where it says that they document WAY MORE CRIMES than we do even if they are all part of the same single crime.

Please check my links before responding. Seriously. Even if I were to say...OK let's keep your figures and I understand your point. The United States is immensely much more violent than the UK even on a smaller scale, commiting more violent crimes than most.

Here is some more informatioln about specific crime difference:

http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-
uk-murder-rates.html

The United States murder rests around 14,000 total for that year while the UK is around 636. Which gives the UNited States a murder rate roughly 20-25 times more than the UK. Pretty violent and scary right? I'd rather get mugged and live than have a chance to be murdered at 20 times the UK. These numbers can be found everywhere, of course except for the amount of crimes "no matter what they are" mentality this particular board is obssessed with. Just sticking to the number that somehow proves your point and give easily accessible guns to a country mudering at 20X the rate as the next who commits "twice" as many more crimes than them per 100,000 citizens. Scary.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 18:22:38 Reply

From your own link your numbers are wrong.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 18:26:45 Reply

At 4/22/13 04:42 AM, Samuraikyo wrote: So let's see, United States has 400 crimes per 100,000 right? And it has 5 times the population? Let's figure this out:

United States: 300 x 400 = 120,000 crimes per million

UK: 62 x 800 = 49,600 crimes per million

Nope, this is why it's important to use units in your calculation.

400 crimes/100,000 people x 300 million people = 120,000 crimes - million people/100,000 people = 120,000 crimes-ten = 1.2 million crimes (total)

In other words, what you calculated was one tenth of the number of total crimes, not a crime rate. Math is hard, but that's not an excuse to do it wrong, then argue that you're doing it right.

Samuraikyo
Samuraikyo
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 19:33:53 Reply

At 4/22/13 06:26 PM, Elfer wrote:
At 4/22/13 04:42 AM, Samuraikyo wrote: So let's see, United States has 400 crimes per 100,000 right? And it has 5 times the population? Let's figure this out:

United States: 300 x 400 = 120,000 crimes per million

UK: 62 x 800 = 49,600 crimes per million
Nope, this is why it's important to use units in your calculation.

400 crimes/100,000 people x 300 million people = 120,000 crimes - million people/100,000 people = 120,000 crimes-ten = 1.2 million crimes (total)

In other words, what you calculated was one tenth of the number of total crimes, not a crime rate. Math is hard, but that's not an excuse to do it wrong, then argue that you're doing it right.

That Math may be wrong because I left out a few figures accidentally. But even adjusting those numbers does not Even change my result. The UK's numbers would be at around 496,000 which is just about two and a half times lower than the United States. My end result is still the same. And thus my point remains. But you already knew that I assume.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 19:36:39 Reply

I don't see how you can "debate" just by saying you are right when you refuse to use statistically accurate numbers. and your own links undermine you by directly combating what you claim.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 20:07:17 Reply

At 4/22/13 07:33 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: That Math may be wrong because I left out a few figures accidentally. But even adjusting those numbers does not Even change my result. The UK's numbers would be at around 496,000 which is just about two and a half times lower than the United States. My end result is still the same. And thus my point remains. But you already knew that I assume.

But what's the significance of the total number of crimes without regard to the population? If you wanted to be safe from murder, would you rather live in a village of 50 people with 45 murders a year, or a city of 500,000 people with 50 murders a year?

Samuraikyo
Samuraikyo
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-22 23:14:59 Reply

At 4/22/13 08:07 PM, Elfer wrote:
At 4/22/13 07:33 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: That Math may be wrong because I left out a few figures accidentally. But even adjusting those numbers does not Even change my result. The UK's numbers would be at around 496,000 which is just about two and a half times lower than the United States. My end result is still the same. And thus my point remains. But you already knew that I assume.
But what's the significance of the total number of crimes without regard to the population? If you wanted to be safe from murder, would you rather live in a village of 50 people with 45 murders a year, or a city of 500,000 people with 50 murders a year?

Well the actual statistic is kind of insignificant. Just because we can work the numbers to a figure like 800 per 100,000 people doesn't mean it's true for every location. It's the same as the United States. This is why people try and choose locations to live with lower amounts of crime. Larger cities will have more crime where as smaller cities tend to be less crime, just because of the less amount of people. It's not true everywhere but it's true to some degree.

So with the figures, you have a .8% chance of being, attacked or mugged or anything in the UK if we are to believe those statistics were even right to begin with. In the United States, you have a .4% chance i'm assuming. The United States had almost 20-25 times more murders than the UK. So here in lies the problem.

Your example would be an obvious answer, it doesn't give you a choice, instead of living in an area where 90% of the people would have killed each other by the end of the year, you choose the place where there's more people and your chance of death is lower. But here is a more logical approach:

Two places where there is 500,000 people in each area. There's twice as many criminals in A as there is in place B.

A = 800 criminals
B = 400 criminals

The obvious choice based on those numbers would be choice B right? Well what if I said, you may have a greater chance of being mugged in choice A, but Choice B has murder rates 20-25 times that of A? All of which is lower than a 1% chance of even happening. The choice is impacted immensely.

The United States is comparable to that degree. It's more dangerous to live in (from what I read), in many more locations and it's by far more violent (compared to the UK). Does this necessarily have to do with guns? I don't know, but it can't possibly be making it any better. Some say it's mostly gang related activity. If that's true, why are we afraid of each other so damn much? It's that paranoia that I dislike. Who cares which country is worse off? That doesn't make ours any better. There are plenty of good reasons to have certain degrees of gun control that I listed earlier in this thread that don't effect the average citizen and it won't help in SOME degree of preventing SOME murders.

That's my whole point.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-23 02:18:51 Reply

At 4/22/13 04:43 PM, Samuraikyo wrote:
you suck at math. 800 per 100,000 will always be higher than 400 per 100,000 no matter how much more the population is. your calculations are horribly flawed. even as the population numbers change, 800 per 100,000 will still be more crimes per capita then 400 per 100,000. to figure out crimes per million you just multiply it by 10.

you calculations put America at 4,960 crimes per 100,000, which is WAY off.
Apparently you didn't read my calculations.

I did, they're wrong.

I did my numbers based on how many sets of 10 they have or millions in total. This is how I got my bigger numbers as per million by totaling all of it together.

which is wrong.

I don't even know how you got 4960.

simple, you said there was 49,600 crimes per million in the USA. which is wrong. when you divide 1 million by 10. you get 100,000 when you divide 49,600 by 10, you get 4,960.

But the point is the same. The Uk does NOT have more crimes than the United States per area.

yes it does. almost double in fact.

Considering Britain is a lot smaller than the United States we have to adjust for this. There are more groups of 100,000 people living condensly than there are in the United States and that is why that figure is so high. It's not even the real number. Check the links.

you point? the math is STILL wrong. this would make any nation look like a criminal hotbed.


The point was that even IF, which it isn't true, but even IF the UK has more crimes per 100,000 citizens which is such a cherry picking figure, The United States has more crime overall in more locations on a larger scale. Roughly three times that of the numbers YOU are choosing to give to the UK. In fact most charts will say the United States has twice as many crimes than the UK EVEN with the different way they document crimes:

umm, yeah, more people usually means more crime. however, a group of 100,000,000 people committing 1,000,000 crimes vs 100,000 people committing 1,000 crimes is still the same percentage of criminals. its why the per capita calculation even exists. your little abomination of mathematical calculations are simply flawed and you can't defend them no matter what stupid logic you try to apply to it.


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-cr imes
Well that's crazy considering I proved that the United States has more crime overall, but people are trying to cherry pick and prove that the UK has TWICE AS MANY CRIMES than the United States which isn't true in the least.

per capita, it is true. you can't deny it with flawed math and capital letters.


Please check my links before responding. Seriously. Even if I were to say...OK let's keep your figures and I understand your point. The United States is immensely much more violent than the UK even on a smaller scale, commiting more violent crimes than most.

if the USA had the same population as the UK, it would have far less crime. Also, the USA is several times larger than the UK, by your logic China and Russia must be perpetual warzones between criminals and crime fighters.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Samuraikyo
Samuraikyo
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-23 03:23:52 Reply

At 4/23/13 02:18 AM, Korriken wrote:
At 4/22/13 04:43 PM, Samuraikyo wrote:
you suck at math. 800 per 100,000 will always be higher than 400 per 100,000 no matter how much more the population is. your calculations are horribly flawed. even as the population numbers change, 800 per 100,000 will still be more crimes per capita then 400 per 100,000. to figure out crimes per million you just multiply it by 10.

you calculations put America at 4,960 crimes per 100,000, which is WAY off.
Apparently you didn't read my calculations.
I did, they're wrong.

I did my numbers based on how many sets of 10 they have or millions in total. This is how I got my bigger numbers as per million by totaling all of it together.
which is wrong.

I don't even know how you got 4960.
simple, you said there was 49,600 crimes per million in the USA. which is wrong. when you divide 1 million by 10. you get 100,000 when you divide 49,600 by 10, you get 4,960.

No I said that number was for the UK, not the United States. I said 120,000 for the United States. My numbers were off by a few 0's because I accidentally left them out. It's nothing to whine about because the outcome is still the same.


But the point is the same. The Uk does NOT have more crimes than the United States per area.
yes it does. almost double in fact.

Considering Britain is a lot smaller than the United States we have to adjust for this. There are more groups of 100,000 people living condensly than there are in the United States and that is why that figure is so high. It's not even the real number. Check the links.
you point? the math is STILL wrong. this would make any nation look like a criminal hotbed.

No, just the United States. Which it is. My math wasn't entirely wrong the outcome was the only reason for showing the math. Even without a few 0's, it still came out exactly how I wanted, a crime rate of 2.5-3 times higher overall.


The point was that even IF, which it isn't true, but even IF the UK has more crimes per 100,000 citizens which is such a cherry picking figure, The United States has more crime overall in more locations on a larger scale. Roughly three times that of the numbers YOU are choosing to give to the UK. In fact most charts will say the United States has twice as many crimes than the UK EVEN with the different way they document crimes:
umm, yeah, more people usually means more crime. however, a group of 100,000,000 people committing 1,000,000 crimes vs 100,000 people committing 1,000 crimes is still the same percentage of criminals. its why the per capita calculation even exists. your little abomination of mathematical calculations are simply flawed and you can't defend them no matter what stupid logic you try to apply to it.

That's ridiculous. The logic that 400 out of every 100,000 people commit crimes is a worthless statistic number also. It's flawed in itself. If you have 1 million people and 2000 commit crimes in ONE area set of 100,000, that statistic would become 200 out of every 100,000 people for entire area of 1 million people which is wrong and NOT TRUE. It's just that one area that committed all the crimes. The same it would be anywhere in the world. Not to mention this would be all over the United States if that statistic is intact. Basically you would have millions of more crimes to be a victim to.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-cr imes
Well that's crazy considering I proved that the United States has more crime overall, but people are trying to cherry pick and prove that the UK has TWICE AS MANY CRIMES than the United States which isn't true in the least.
per capita, it is true. you can't deny it with flawed math and capital letters.

It's a bullshit number and even when we keep the 400 and 800 numbers it STILL outnumbers the UK based on how many more sets of 100,000 there are in the USA. The number ISN'T true. There are 240 MORE sets of 400 out of 100,000 crimes to fall victim to in the US. If you had read the links, which you didn't, it explains how that 800 out of 100,000 for the UK is FLAWED since it pertains to information that was documented differently in a different year. The number is more like 250-350 per 100,000 (probably not even that). If you had read the links, you would know that or at least have an understanding of it.


Please check my links before responding. Seriously. Even if I were to say...OK let's keep your figures and I understand your point. The United States is immensely much more violent than the UK even on a smaller scale, commiting more violent crimes than most.
if the USA had the same population as the UK, it would have far less crime. Also, the USA is several times larger than the UK, by your logic China and Russia must be perpetual warzones between criminals and crime fighters.

There's absolutely NO WAY to prove that there would be less crime if our population was lowered. I actually find it hilarious that despite the fact the United States is 38 times the size of the UK with only 5 times the population, I find it hilarious that even with those flawed numbers, the US would still be commiting crimes at half the rate of the UK even though we have so many more places to live and get away from crime areas. And no, hilariously enough, China's murder rate is about 4 to 5 times LESS than the United States even though it has roughly 4 times the population. They have gun control over there as well. Here are some links you can check out for that:

http://www.chinalawblog.com/2006/05/china_crime_by_the_numbe rs_and.html

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21575767-official-figure s-showing-sharp-drop-chinas-murder-rate-are-misleading-murde r-mysteries

About Russia, Russia is simply a shithole. There's by far a higher murder rate there, but hilariously enough their actual murders are around the same as ours with only a couple hundred's different. Russia is worse than the United States to a degree. But the UK is much safer than the United States as they have a murder rate of 1.2 which is only slightly higher than China, but their murder count is less than 1000, which I believe it's around 750.

The United States has high crime, in fact some of the highest around. I don't know why you're even trying to prove that it isn't. Who cares? Oh no, the US is a shithole...oh well.

Hope my quotes came out alright. Not use to quoting on here.

Fim
Fim
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 47
Audiophile
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-23 09:23:49 Reply

At 4/23/13 03:23 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:
No I said that number was for the UK, not the United States. I said 120,000 for the United States. My numbers were off by a few 0's because I accidentally left them out. It's nothing to whine about because the outcome is still the same.

well hell that's even further off then, that puts America at 12,000 crimes per 100,000, which would make the USA more dangerous than Somalia.

you can't defend your math, that's simply impossible. you turned 400 per 100,000 into 12,000 per 100,000 with some crap math you pulled out your ass. and for what? i have no idea.

No, just the United States. Which it is. My math wasn't entirely wrong the outcome was the only reason for showing the math. Even without a few 0's, it still came out exactly how I wanted, a crime rate of 2.5-3 times higher overall.

the UK has a higher crime rater per capita than the USA. and yes, the math IS entirely wrong. no one here is going to agree with it because it's simply wrong. and of course it came out how you WANTED, problem is, it doesn't reflect reality at all.



That's ridiculous. The logic that 400 out of every 100,000 people commit crimes is a worthless statistic number also.

no it's not.

It's flawed in itself. If you have 1 million people and 2000 commit crimes in ONE area set of 100,000, that statistic would become 200 out of every 100,000 people for entire area of 1 million people which is wrong and NOT TRUE.

if you know anything about math, you'd see that 2,000 out of 1 million and 200 out of 100,000 is the same percentage. you simply divide them both by 10.

It's just that one area that committed all the crimes. The same it would be anywhere in the world. Not to mention this would be all over the United States if that statistic is intact. Basically you would have millions of more crimes to be a victim to.

*head scratch* not only do you fail at math, you fail at logic too. Let me spell this out in small words so you can understand. crime rate per capita is the number of crimes divided by the number of people in an area, be it a block, district, city, county/parish/borough/prefecture, state, or nation. your lousy math trying to make the USA look like it has a higher crime rate than the UK per capita simply doesn't work. the USA has 3 times the population and only double the crime. when you divide the population of the UK by the number of crimes and then do the same for the USA, the UK comes out with a higher number of crimes per capita.

It's a bullshit number...

I can basically tell you're just gonna keep crying bullshit and putting out your wrong numbers to prove some flawed point, while the rest of the forum laughs at you.

There's absolutely NO WAY to prove that there would be less crime if our population was lowered. I actually find it hilarious that despite the fact the United States is 38 times the size of the UK with only 5 times the population,

which means less overall population density, which is a factor in crime. more population density leads to more crime.

I find it hilarious that even with those flawed numbers, the US would still be commiting crimes at half the rate of the UK even though we have so many more places to live and get away from crime areas. And no, hilariously enough, China's murder rate is about 4 to 5 times LESS than the United States even though it has roughly 4 times the population. They have gun control over there as well. Here are some links you can check out for that:

you can't just take the murder rate into account. if you're trying to say we have a murder rate of 12,000 per 100,000 then a 10th of our population would be wiped out every year which would eventually eradicate human life in the USA. and if you're not then you're simply moving the goal posts around as your points get shot down.

But the UK is much safer than the United States as they have a murder rate of 1.2 which is only slightly higher than China, but their murder count is less than 1000, which I believe it's around 750.

murder isn't the only crime. you're twice as likely to be raped, assaulted, carjacked, etc in the UK. Also, gang on gang violence makes up a large portion of the USAs murder rate.


The United States has high crime, in fact some of the highest around. I don't know why you're even trying to prove that it isn't. Who cares? Oh no, the US is a shithole...oh well.

the US is not a shithole, silly 'tard. our crime rate isn't even as high as the UK's.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-23 10:03:04 Reply

At 4/23/13 09:12 AM, Fim wrote: Isn't there already proof that gun control does work.

http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts-and-culture/john-oliver-t he-daily-show-and-john-howard-debunk-/a7d9fa83-3982-4afc-91d 9-78d2796bc0c2.htm

You really aren't linking something from the daily show right? Violent crime, robbery, mugging, and rape don't get better. I don't want to live in a country where the right to defend yourself is not a legal reason for obtaining a gun. And in this country where they get to judge if your reason is good enough.

I do not want to live in a country where a paintball gun or an air rifle is as difficult to obtain as a shotgun or rifle. (same category for them)

And Korri sorry, apparently you are going to keep arguing with a guy who doesn't understand statistics.