Home Politics and Debate
Exciting news! Join our watch club and get free access to NOW for 1 month

Where do you stand politically?

145679

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Point is, though, that not everywhere in the U.S. is the same. New York is ridiculously urbanized, but Arkansas is very rural and Louisiana is mixed.

    Same applies to most countries though. In the UK, London is ridiculously urbanised, whilst Cumbria is much much more rural.

    This is why population is the best comparable we have.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You argue that more cars in NY means more likely to have an accident. When you do, other cars are more likely to be involved.

    My argument is that more guns available means that gun death is more likely and when one person is prepared to use it (in defence or attack) then so is the other person.

    Not really. Because no one wants to risk getting shot, so-- why am I explaining this for the thirtieth time?
    Looking into some of the national statistics more, burglary rates in the US are actually higher than in the UK, but US burglars are more likely to wait until you are out. That makes sense, less likely to be shot.

    Again, look at the individual states. Not all states have guns legalized...

    ...I feel like I'm talking to the wall.
    Same applies to most countries though. In the UK, London is ridiculously urbanised, whilst Cumbria is much much more rural.

    This is why population is the best comparable we have.

    Do you really think that the U.S. and U.K. have the exact same percentages of urban and rural environments? It doesn't work that way. The U.S. is huge with differing cultures in just different towns. Let alone between cities and states.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Again, look at the individual states. Not all states have guns legalized...

    ...I feel like I'm talking to the wall.

    I explained the same thing at least once tonight trying to help you guys clarify. The difference is that in the UK, guns are illegal across the nation. Here, they're legal in some places and not in others. It varies. So looking at the nation as a whole is misleading when you're trying to focus on the relationship between gun laws and gun violence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not really. Because no one wants to risk getting shot, so-- why am I explaining this for the thirtieth time?

    So, why have a gun?

    Is it because an intruder might have one (which you argued earlier) or something else?
    Again, look at the individual states. Not all states have guns legalized...

    ...I feel like I'm talking to the wall.

    Didn't we use Texas as an example earlier in this thread though?

    A state without gun controls, with a much higher death/homicide by firearm rate etc and yet with similar population to England?
    Do you really think that the U.S. and U.K. have the exact same percentages of urban and rural environments? It doesn't work that way. The U.S. is huge with differing cultures in just different towns. Let alone between cities and states.

    In what way then is that different to the UK?

    Manchester is not London, London is not Kent and none are like Cumbria. Not in Geography, Urbanisation or even culture.

    Worth noting

    US - 80% urban population (US DoT)
    UK - 80% urban population (UK ONS)

    .. which is a ridiculous coincidence!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, why have a gun?

    Is it because an intruder might have one (which you argued earlier) or something else?

    They don't have to have a gun for a gun to be useful in stopping them in their tracks, but yet it is certainly useful when a burglar has a gun.
    Didn't we use Texas as an example earlier in this thread though?

    A state without gun controls, with a much higher death/homicide by firearm rate etc and yet with similar population to England?

    That was all deaths by firearm, which I covered.
    In what way then is that different to the UK?

    Manchester is not London, London is not Kent and none are like Cumbria. Not in Geography, Urbanisation or even culture.

    Worth noting

    US - 80% urban population (US DoT)
    UK - 80% urban population (UK ONS)

    .. which is a ridiculous coincidence!

    Except, again, an individual state is larger than England.

    Also, urbanization. (Curious where your material was garnered from.) But know what? Even if that were the case though, you can't possibly tell me that you propose arguing in favor of U.S. v. U.K. on gun laws rather than the individual states when all of the U.S. doesn't even allow gun ownership.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That was all deaths by firearm, which I covered.

    Apologies Texas has half the population of England
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even if that were the case though, you can't possibly tell me that you propose arguing in favor of U.S. v. U.K. on gun laws rather than the individual states when all of the U.S. doesn't even allow gun ownership.
    And as different parts of the UK have diffent Gun law you'd have to separate them into Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And as different parts of the UK have diffent Gun law you'd have to separate them into Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland

    Makes sense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're telling me what I was talking about? I will quote my original post:

    I said it was a bigger country. I said the individual states were larger. Not more populated. I mentioned nothing about population in that entire paragraph. Or the paragraph above that. And Teagan said nothing about population in the quote that that was a response to.

    Unless you can tell me a single logical reason why you would've linked the level of crime to the size of a piece of land. I assume Greenland and Mongolia are like prisons without any prison officers, are they? Only 50,000 people in Greenland, but it's bigger than the UK, so we should expect more crime should we? Give me a break, you're being deliberately intellectually dishonest. The physical size of the USA has fuck all to do with anything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unless you can tell me a single logical reason why you would've linked the level of crime to the size of a piece of land. I assume Greenland and Mongolia are like prisons without any prison officers, are they? Only 50,000 people in Greenland, but it's bigger than the UK, so we should expect more crime should we? Give me a break, you're being deliberately intellectually dishonest. The physical size of the USA has fuck all to do with anything.
    Well, population/land area gives an indication of population density; which in turn gives an indication of urbanisation. Gun crime tends to be higher in urban areas.

    *Sigh*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That quote specifically indicates size is only relevant when used in conjunction with population to derive density, which itself is only an approximation of urbanisation.

    So the larger a country is in habitable area the lower we expect gun crime to be; the larger a country is in population the higher we expect gun crime to be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And the point is that the United States is a very diverse setting, with different gun laws in different places, different environments, the whole nine yards. Comparatively, the United States is more like the European Union than any individual country.

    But no one is interested in looking at that because it doesn't support their position, so it seems everyone is just interested in coming up with excuses why that analysis shouldn't be.

    It's the same thing with comparing wealth. Sure, if you compare the U.S. to England, the U.S. seems much richer. But it's not a fair comparison. But if you then compare the individual states to Europe or the United States to the European Union, it paints a fairly different picture.

    If you take into account landmass, you'll realize that it's very proportionate to Europe with the population quite similar to the European Union. You'll realize that a European going on vacation to another country is not all that different than an American going on vacation to another state.

    But no, I'm With Stupid seems to think I'm genuinely ignorant enough to state that Texas is larger than England in terms of population because... I dunno. I guess because it helps him paint me as ignorant to the facts and, thus, not worth listening to?

    But no, rather than saying "Okay, well, lets look at the individual states relative to gun control", this entire debate for the last few pages has been arbitrary dodging of those facts with semantics and personal incredulity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But no, rather than saying "Okay, well, lets look at the individual states relative to gun control", this entire debate for the last few pages has been arbitrary dodging of those facts with semantics and personal incredulity.

    That's why I STFU in times like these. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You were actually doing a splendid job of keeping a very intellectual debate going. You weren't intentionally evading my points like some of the others are doing and you actually brought relevant information to the table, which allowed the conversation to progress instead of stagnating on bickering that goes nowhere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And the point is that the United States is a very diverse setting, with different gun laws in different places,
    But no, rather than saying "Okay, well, lets look at the individual states relative to gun control", .
    So where are the figures broken down per state?

    Within the UK it's Norther Ireland that has the most liberal gun laws, and the most gun related deaths
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I posted it earlier in the thread and it got ignored. Go find them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I posted it earlier in the thread and it got ignored. Go find them.

    I looked at them when you posted them and I ignored them as they appeared to be traffic related deaths.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I stand with whoever makes the best decisions, I don't understand why people feel the need to assign their views to a political party.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I looked at them when you posted them and I ignored them as they appeared to be traffic related deaths.
    Thing is that in the majority of places where those shootings occur, there are strict gun laws in place. And even then, it's not like we're desensitized to the shock of it in the U.S. Very few, if any, states are without gun control. As I said before, Jessi was compiling a post dedicated to exposing that myth in regards to the mass shootings in the U.S.

    If we pit the State of Louisiana, alone (the State with the most gun violence in the U.S.) in the pool of gun violence per country, I wonder what will happen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

    It seems that Louisiana's percentage is quite a bit higher than the national percentage. But if you look at the next highest on that list, it's Maryland -- which would pit us right behind Uruguay. Now, mind you, that's the state with the second highest rate of gun violence in the U.S. and it's already moving down on that list.

    Utah, Iowa, South Dakota, Maine, North Dakota, Wyoming, Hawaii, Vermont and New Hampshire all fall below Singapore, which is at the bottom of the above list. Those same nine, by the way? All "shall issue", with the exception of Hawaii which is "may issue".

    http://fenris.perldev.org/docs/weaponbanornot.pdf
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
    http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

    :x
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It seems that Louisiana's percentage is quite a bit higher than the national percentage. But if you look at the next highest on that list, it's Maryland -- which would pit us right behind Uruguay. Now, mind you, that's the state with the second highest rate of gun violence in the U.S. and it's already moving down on that list.

    Utah, Iowa, South Dakota, Maine, North Dakota, Wyoming, Hawaii, Vermont and New Hampshire all fall below Singapore, which is at the bottom of the above list. Those same nine, by the way? All "shall issue", with the exception of Hawaii which is "may issue".

    You did notice that the UK doesn't even appear on that list of nations, right?

    Doesn't that suggest that our rate is less that the lowest rate of 0.94? Even assuming that we would be next that still makes our rate better that at least 41 US states. Interestingly the actual rate for the UK is about 0.1 - better than any US state.

    Of course if, as in a previous thread, you wish to compare with the EU then you should note that only two of the 27 member states have a higher rate than the US.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You did notice that the UK doesn't even appear on that list of nations, right?

    Doesn't that suggest that our rate is less that the lowest rate of 0.94? Even assuming that we would be next that still makes our rate better that at least 41 US states. Interestingly the actual rate for the UK is about 0.1 - better than any US state.

    Of course if, as in a previous thread, you wish to compare with the EU then you should note that only two of the 27 member states have a higher rate than the US.

    No. If you're going to use the European Union, ith as to be collective just as you're making the U.S. collective. :)

    As for the U.K. being on that list, it was because it was in reference to a majority of European countries, which is what we were talking about in the context.

    And the nine states, as I pointed out, are all "shall issue". I'm curious where you got that U.K. statistic from because I couldn't find it on any list.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No. If you're going to use the European Union, ith as to be collective just as you're making the U.S. collective. :)

    Well, maybe my maths is a little wrong here but surely if 25/27 states has a much lower rate than the US then surely the average will be lower too?
    And the nine states, as I pointed out, are all "shall issue". I'm curious where you got that U.K. statistic from because I couldn't find it on any list.

    Via some excellent articles on Wiki... this being one of them
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    SoWithin the UK it's Norther Ireland that has the most liberal gun laws, and the most gun related deaths

    This may be true (I haven't seen any recent figures and I'm no longer as au fait with Northern Ireland's firearms law as I was), but whilst its possible that the number of firearm related deaths is due to the liberal firearm laws it is actually more likely to be the other way round ie Northern Ireland's firearms laws are to a reaction to the number of gun related deaths.

    I haven't seen figures, but anecdotally the majority of people (actually all) I knew with legal personal weapons were ex or serving police and soldiers, ie the people at biggest risk from those with illegally held weapons. And also those with weapons training, so not some kid who's picked up an assault weapon at Walmart

    I suspect if these people weren't able to access personal protection weapons the toll of weapon related deaths would be higher not lower.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    You did notice that the UK doesn't even appear on that list of nations, right?

    Doesn't that suggest that our rate is less that the lowest rate of 0.94? Even assuming that we would be next that still makes our rate better that at least 41 US states. Interestingly the actual rate for the UK is about 0.1 - better than any US state.

    Of course if, as in a previous thread, you wish to compare with the EU then you should note that only two of the 27 member states have a higher rate than the US.

    It may also be because the UK doesn't record firearm related deaths, Scotland, England (and Wales) and Northern Ireland all do seperately :razz:

    (Though I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with your argument)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, maybe my maths is a little wrong here but surely if 25/27 states has a much lower rate than the US then surely the average will be lower too?

    As I showed before, Louisiana -- which is in shambles -- has a much higher rate of gun homicide than the other states, pulling the the average significantly higher. As I demonstrated earlier, Louisiana's gun homicide rate alone is a far stretch higher than the U.S. average, but the very second highest already starts to bring us down on the list.

    Comparing each State in the European Union to the collective United States just puts us right back at square one.
    Via some excellent articles on Wiki... this being one of them

    Reviewing that, it seems that England/Wales is the only one on the list without anything in the source/notes and dates columns. Upon further investigation, it seems that this article was only accepted in 1997. Interestingly enough, rates have gone up since then.

    But you know what? I'm going to let you have that one. We'll presume that it still hasn't raised beyond the rate of New Hampshire. Because my original point in posting that still stands, in that the United States standing on the list of countries by firearm violence readily decreases from Maryland down, with fairly average rates for the majority of the states. Bottom nine, all being "shall issue".

    This is why I say statistics are bullshit. Where one set of statistics is in favor of gun control, the other set is against.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But even the lowest individual state is still higher than the majority of EU countries.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It may also be because the UK doesn't record firearm related deaths, Scotland, England (and Wales) and Northern Ireland all do seperately :razz:

    (Though I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with your argument)

    Yea I had noted that, I'd also noted that Scotland was still pretty low. Even in NI when gun crime has a completely different focus (i.e punishment by terrorists etc), the rate is still a huge amount lower than most US states.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Via some excellent articles on Wiki... this being one of them

    Except the majority of the stats seem to be taken from

    Krug 1998) EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg. "Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries.", International Journal of Epidemiology 1998. [3] Statistics among 36 countries between 1990 and 1995.

    ie the majority of the stats are between 15 and 20 years old...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Yea I had noted that, I'd also noted that Scotland was still pretty low. Even in NI when gun crime has a completely different focus (i.e punishment by terrorists etc), the rate is still a huge amount lower than most US states.

    I'm not sure which figures we're using as so many are being thrown around, but assuming you're using this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state for US state and this for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#cite_ref-GunCite2008_5-0 for NI

    In which case I have NI as 5.24 firearm related homicides per 100,000 which means that only Louisana (10.13 ), Maryland (6.95) and Mississippi (5.55) are higher than N.Ireland's
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, so looking at the per state data I plotted deaths per 100k against percentage gun ownership.
Sign In or Register to comment.