https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...death_rate

(December 3, 2015 at 9:02 pm)Beccs Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...death_rate

That is not the per-capita murder rate. Let me just say it again, when the UK banned guns in 1968, the murder rate didn't drop. People just switched to different means. What I asked for is a stat showing that it did. Not a fabricated stat like firearms related deaths where people are using it like it's a per capita murder rate. All that link shows is that when guns are unavailable people use other instruments to murder. What I'm looking for is someone backing up the claim that banning guns would cause a lower murder rate, which you claimed would happen with a ban on assault rifles. I mean if you are going to make a claim like that, you should be able to come up with an example.

No, it's gun deaths per 100,000 people.

(December 3, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Beccs Wrote: No, it's gun deaths per 100,000 people.

I got what it is. How is it relevant to the claim you made that a ban on assault rifles would dramatically lower the per capita murder rate.

Listen very closely, Cap.  I don't give a flying fuck about the "rate."  I care about the number of bodies piled up.  Try to comprehend that.

(December 3, 2015 at 9:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Listen very closely, Cap.  I don't give a flying fuck about the "rate."  I care about the number of bodies piled up.  Try to comprehend that.

Yeaaah, the number of bodies piled up is the same thing as a murder rate, just put more graphically.

Edit: I also think it's insane to not think the per capita murder rate is a relevant statistic. Also, to repeat, I'm not particularly pro-gun. I have just taken it as my personal goal to make these constant threads less about shitty emotional arguments and misleading stats and more substantial.

(December 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 9:02 pm)Beccs Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...death_rate

That is not the per-capita murder rate. Let me just say it again, when the UK banned guns in 1968, the murder rate didn't drop. People just switched to different means. What I asked for is a stat showing that it did. Not a fabricated stat like firearms related deaths where people are using it like it's a per capita murder rate. All that link shows is that when guns are unavailable people use other instruments to murder. What I'm looking for is someone backing up the claim that banning guns would cause a lower murder rate, which you claimed would happen with a ban on assault rifles. I mean if you are going to make a claim like that, you should be able to come up with an example.

Quote:This was not the first shooting massacre we had suffered, but it was the largest in living memory. The tragedy ignited an explosion of public outrage, soul-searching and demands for better regulation of guns. We changed our laws. As a result, gun deaths in Australia have dropped by two-thirds, and we have never had another mass shooting.

Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is, say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US rate (pdf), according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 – less than one-tenth the US rate (pdf). Those figures refer to all gun deaths – homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...aves-lives

(December 3, 2015 at 9:27 pm)Cato Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: That is not the per-capita murder rate. Let me just say it again, when the UK banned guns in 1968, the murder rate didn't drop. People just switched to different means. What I asked for is a stat showing that it did. Not a fabricated stat like firearms related deaths where people are using it like it's a per capita murder rate. All that link shows is that when guns are unavailable people use other instruments to murder. What I'm looking for is someone backing up the claim that banning guns would cause a lower murder rate, which you claimed would happen with a ban on assault rifles. I mean if you are going to make a claim like that, you should be able to come up with an example.

Quote:This was not the first shooting massacre we had suffered, but it was the largest in living memory. The tragedy ignited an explosion of public outrage, soul-searching and demands for better regulation of guns. We changed our laws. As a result, gun deaths in Australia have dropped by two-thirds, and we have never had another mass shooting.

Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is, say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US rate (pdf), according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 – less than one-tenth the US rate (pdf). Those figures refer to all gun deaths – homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...aves-lives

Eventually you guys will wear me out by doing the same thing over and over again. The statistic there isn't a per capita murder rate (it's the same old 'gun deaths' stat that I've already discussed at length) and doesn't show that the gun ban in Australia reduced the per capita murder rate, which is the only relevant statistic. I'm very open to the idea that it does, but use of this faulty stat just doesn't make the case. All it makes the case for is that people switch to different means for murder.

It should be easy to figure out why it's irrelevant with a thought experiment. If your gun deaths (which includes suicide) went down by 90%, but your per capita murder rate went up by 1000%, you'd be living in a horrifyingly worse society, but I guess at least you'd have low 'gun deaths'

You know what each one of those bodies represents?  A dead person.  Think of it that way the next time you caress your gun.

(December 3, 2015 at 9:32 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Eventually you guys will wear me out by doing the same thing over and over again. The statistic there isn't a per capita murder rate (it's the same old 'gun deaths' stat and doesn't show that the gun ban in Australia reduced the per capita murder rate. I'm very open to the idea that it does, but use of this faulty stat just doesn't make the case. All it makes the case for is that people switch to different means for murder.

You're suffering from a loss of big flick casualty. The problem that is being addressed is gun deaths, specifically mass shootings of the type experienced yesterday. Your obsession with per-capita murder rate is a red hearing. I am not making a case that stricter gun control will reduce per-capita murder rates. I am making the case that stricter gun control will reduce gun related deaths. You're the one bleating on about per-capita murder, not me.