(December 3, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You know what each one of those bodies represents? A dead person. Think of it that way the next time you caress your gun.
I don't own a gun. They seem like a waste of money to me.
US murder rate close to historic lows.
|
(December 3, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You know what each one of those bodies represents? A dead person. Think of it that way the next time you caress your gun. I don't own a gun. They seem like a waste of money to me. RE: US murder rate close to historic lows.
December 3, 2015 at 9:40 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2015 at 9:42 pm by CapnAwesome.)
(December 3, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Cato Wrote:(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. What? Why are gun related deaths worse than any other deaths?? If it doesn't reduce the murder rate, what's the point? I can't ever understand the logic behind this. Say there are 1000 people killed, 90% with guns. You ban guns and the next year 1000 people are killed, 90% with knives. The gun-deaths has gone down 90% but the same number of people can be killed. I keep 'bleating' about the per capita murder rate because it's the only relevant stat. (December 3, 2015 at 9:40 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(December 3, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Cato Wrote: 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. That's not the fucking point! Are you intentionally being obtuse or does it come naturally? Your insane argument is the same as saying we will no longer perform life saving colon cancer operations because colon cancer isn't any worse than other non-operable cancers. (December 3, 2015 at 9:40 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: What? Why are gun related deaths worse than any other deaths?? If it doesn't reduce the murder rate, what's the point? I can't ever understand the logic behind this. Say there are 1000 people killed, 90% with guns. You ban guns and the next year 1000 people are killed, 90% with knives. The gun-deaths has gone down 90% but the same number of people can be killed. I keep 'bleating' about the per capita murder rate because it's the only relevant stat. If I had a magic button that instantly made all guns in the U.S. immediately disappear you are going to maintain the position that the murder rate will remain static? (December 3, 2015 at 9:42 pm)!Cato Wrote:(December 3, 2015 at 9:40 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: What? Why are gun related deaths worse than any other deaths?? What are you talking about? I had a late edit but I'd like for you to reply. If there was a society, we'll call it society A. With 100 muders per capita, 90 done with knives, beatings and explosives and society B. The same murder rate, but 90% done with guns. Society A would have a drastically lower 'gun deaths' rate. Drastically lower, but here is the important part: The same number of people are being killed. RE: US murder rate close to historic lows.
December 3, 2015 at 9:48 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2015 at 9:50 pm by CapnAwesome.)
(December 3, 2015 at 9:44 pm)Cato Wrote:(December 3, 2015 at 9:40 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: What? Why are gun related deaths worse than any other deaths?? If it doesn't reduce the murder rate, what's the point? I can't ever understand the logic behind this. Say there are 1000 people killed, 90% with guns. You ban guns and the next year 1000 people are killed, 90% with knives. The gun-deaths has gone down 90% but the same number of people can be killed. I keep 'bleating' about the per capita murder rate because it's the only relevant stat. I'm just saying that the murder rate is the relevant statistic, not gun deaths. That's all I'm saying. I'm trying to build these threads into a more honest discussion. Also we do have the good example of UK gun deaths going up after their gun laws went into place, although that likely has other causes and I don't want to derail this discussion any more. Do you at least get my point about the per capita murder rate being the relevant stat? RE: US murder rate close to historic lows.
December 3, 2015 at 9:55 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2015 at 9:56 pm by Cato.)
(December 3, 2015 at 9:48 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(December 3, 2015 at 9:44 pm)Cato Wrote: If I had a magic button that instantly made all guns in the U.S. immediately disappear you are going to maintain the position that the murder rate will remain static? Really? If so, then actually answer my question. I know it's impractical, but it is a starting point... Do you honestly believe that if all guns were removed from the U.S. that the murder rate would remain static? Edit: Gun deaths is the relevant statistic when it's gun deaths that are being discussed. RE: US murder rate close to historic lows.
December 3, 2015 at 10:01 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2015 at 10:06 pm by CapnAwesome.)
(December 3, 2015 at 9:55 pm)Cato Wrote:(December 3, 2015 at 9:48 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm just saying that the murder rate is the relevant statistic, not gun deaths. That's all I'm saying. I'm trying to build these threads into a more honest discussion. Except that this is my thread and it's a thread about the per capita murder rate. The gun deaths stat was brought it by you to derail my discussion. Also I asked earlier for an example where the per capita murder rate went down with gun bans and you brought in an article showing that gun deaths went down. That challenge remains open. Also we don't live in a bubble where gun laws have never been enacted. I'll answer your question if you can answer this Do you know what happened to the murder rate in the UK when the UK enacted their gun laws?
When you start a thread you do run the risk of someone correcting your perceptions.
(December 3, 2015 at 10:01 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Except that this is my thread and it's a thread about the per capita murder rate. The gun deaths stat was brought it by you to derail my discussion. Also I asked earlier for an example where the per capita murder rate went down with gun bans and you brought in an article showing that gun deaths went down. Now you'll have me believe that this thread is specifically dedicated to per capita murder rates and has nothing at all to do with the mass shooting thread discussions from which it sprang. I now have my choice of turning your bubble analogy around on you or accuse you of attempting to take your ball and go home. UK? Why are you ignoring the more appropriate example of Australia? Here's more. The actual study can be linked in the article: Quote:So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.Bolding mine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...australia/ |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|