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

Where do you stand politically?

14567810»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd say there was a pretty strong correlation.

    Now, of course, correlation doesn't equate to causation - and would it be more guns causing more deaths, or more deaths causing people to get more guns for protection
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    According to the list you posted before, it's about even in regards to New Hampshire. Depending how you line up the countries in the U.K., it can go either way with a plus-one advantage to whichever it's decided in favor. Though Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta and Romania aren't on the list for whatever reason.

    And of the countries that are below New Hampshire on your link, 3 are actually below it according to this list and 8 are not even on that list.

    And Poland is right on the line with New Hampshire, but I'll give you that one anyway. So, assuming that all of the MIA countries are still lower than New Hampshire, that means New Hampshire beats fifteen countries and is only beaten by ten.

    Your link's source material is quite old with the majority of the individual country's statistics, a decade or more older than the U.S. state ones. In fact, if you look at the dates, the countries with the higher rates tend to have their dates in the 2000s more often than the lower ones.

    The NationMaster link's statistics' minimum date range is 1998 with the general pool being 2000, which while still old, shows the progression of time. For example, Germany's stats, which is 1994 in your link, has a higher gun homicide rate than New Hampshire in 2000 despite having a lower one in 1994.

    And remember, as Jessi established earlier, gun violence in England/Wales rose after 1998, which was after the sourced material in your link (when followed.)

    I stick by my guns (lol) in declaring statistics bullshit, but if one is to read these statistics, it's pretty obvious that the U.S.'s gun homicide rate is relatively average relative to its size.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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

    Yeah, rookie mistake. I should have checked rather than going from memory *facepalm*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's pretty obvious that the U.S.'s gun homicide rate is relatively average relative to its size.

    Only if you think that having the 14th highest rate in the world is average.

    Which ever way you have tried to argue and cut these statistics, the US and a nation (and most states) still comes out higher than the vast majority of nations.

    Hardly "average"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *Blink*

    Okay.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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*

    Erm, which would mean that the USA should have lower gun crime than England, because its population density is much lower. That's using your logic, but somehow you're using it as an excuse for the USAs (apparent) high rate of gun crime.

    You've tried to cut these statistics in every possible way to make it beneficial to your argument. Individual states, the whole of the EU rather than comparing to countries, then it doesn't count because of the date, or because America is bigger. And finally, when none of these are working for you, you simply state that statistics are bullshit. :rolleyes:

    Look, I have no opinion on whether widespread gun ownership correlates with an increase in homicide generally, which is surely the main issue, but the idea that it doesn't correlate with an increase in homicide by firearms is ludicrous, and not borne out by any of the statistics (but I know, they must be bullshit if they don't support your argument).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually, I stated statistics are bullshit before I posted a single statistic. Good to see that you follow everything I say so closely though.

    I've already demonstrated everything I need to. So, the rest of your post is water off a duck's ass for me at this point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you say so.

    And of course statistics are bullshit. That's your little get-out clause before you even start. Doesn't stop you being very keen for everyone to read some statistics when you think they happen to support your views though, does it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except I don't actually believe that the statistics harm my argument and, in fact, either support it or are inconsistent. False premise.

    Mark Twain famously said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Since then, there have been books written that support the premise. Check out "Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists" by Joel Best.

    For the sake of conducting intellectual argument, I will debate statistics, but they are hardly an end-all, be-all to debate. Never once did I say "The statistics support me, so obviously I'm right about guns." Not once.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Statistics are not the be all and end all of a debate, which is why they come with commentary. It's not enough to dismiss a set of statistics with some sort of sweeping statement about all statistics being bullshit. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Statistics are facts, like it or not. If you think they're irrelevant to the argument or misleading in some way, then it's up to you to demonstrate why on an individual basis, not by using a quote from Mark Twain to imply that statistics are all lies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't dismiss anything thus far. I showed the statistics, did the whole commentary thing, showed that it favored my argument (disagree or not) and after I showed that it favored my argument, I added "But statistics are bullshit."

    Er... yeah.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    27847_cartoon_main.jpg

    Sums up your argument. You're still on my ignore list though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    owow u so ttly pwned me with that webcomic that you didn't create, bro. i'm so ttly jeluz of ur leet pwning skillz.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    27847_cartoon_main.jpg

    Sums up your argument. You're still on my ignore list though.

    [Homer] Hhmmm ignore list [/Homer] :D
Sign In or Register to comment.