Be Like England is the Common Pro-Gun Control Stance, but...

[Aurin]

Oh, my mistake. It only linked to a single post so I thought that was literally the thread, but I see the full thread now.

Thanks.

 

[Aurin]

Dang man. I'm surprised you would link me to that thread, considering the amount of backlash you received for it.

I'm also surprised you considered that to be "debunking". I guess I was just expecting a meta-analyses of sorts or something, but you just continued reposting the same information, some of your information presenting literally the same data that Snopes challenges. And when someone presented conflincting figures to you, you just called them insane instead of addressing them.

Your sources also don't really tell me where to look to verify the information myself, either. What constitutes a "violent" crime? Crime rate increased 42%? That seems like a very serious statistical anomaly--such a claim needs more hard data to back it up.

Fortunately your sources do frequently state they pulled data from the AIC, which is what Snopes used. Do you have any comments about the following link?

Constant rates of homicide victimisation in Australia [CFI no. 3]

Also, it's spelled "Snopes". I guess you're intentionally misspelling it because it's supposed to somehow reduce the merits of the claims Snopes makes? I've realized these boards have a rather strange obsession with disfiguring names like that. It seems rather infantile to me, and considering a political discussion board would be centralized on furthering your argument, I can't see why someone would want to discolor themselves like that before I've even been given the chance to consume whatever information they have to share.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dang man. I'm surprised you would link me to that thread, considering the amount of backlash you received for it.

I'm also surprised you considered that to be "debunking". I guess I was just expecting a meta-analyses of sorts or something, but you just continued reposting the same information, some of your information presenting literally the same data that Snopes challenges. And when someone presented conflincting figures to you, you just called them insane instead of addressing them.

Your sources also don't really tell me where to look to verify the information myself, either. What constitutes a "violent" crime? Crime rate increased 42%? That seems like a very serious statistical anomaly--such a claim needs more hard data to back it up.

Fortunately your sources do frequently state they pulled data from the AIC, which is what Snopes used. Do you have any comments about the following link?

Constant rates of homicide victimisation in Australia [CFI no. 3]

Also, it's spelled "Snopes". I guess you're intentionally misspelling it because it's supposed to somehow reduce the merits of the claims Snopes makes? I've realized these boards have a rather strange obsession with disfiguring names like that. It seems rather infantile to me, and considering a political discussion board would be centralized on furthering your argument, I can't see why someone would want to discolor themselves like that before I've even been given the chance to consume whatever information they have to share.

Dang man. I'm surprised you would link me to that thread, considering the amount of backlash you received for it.

Backlash doesn't make them right.

I guess you're intentionally misspelling it because it's supposed to somehow reduce the merits of the claims Snopes makes?

Snoopes is what it is a defensive mechanism for the democratic party .

Your sources also don't really tell me where to look to verify the information myself, either. What constitutes a "violent" crime? Crime rate increased 42%? That seems like a very serious statistical anomaly--such a claim needs more hard data to back it up.

Yes it did.

 

[Aurin]

I guess I'll reiterate in a different light.

Snopes takes each individual claim made against Australia and systematically explains how the data can be distorted and even provides links to direct evidence. They don't just say "according to the AIC they are wrong", they provide me with some context even.

Your sources didn't really counter any of the information presented by Snopes. It just repeated a bunch of numbers that "came from AIC". It is already suspect that they don't directly link me to the figures being used, and instead places the burden on me to find them.

Can you provide them, or shall I start digging?

Snoopes is what it is a defensive mechanism for the democratic party .

Do you mark off every study that runs counter to your beliefs as being liberally funded propaganda? Realize that in the infinite range of information the universe has to provide us, there will be examples that don't exactly line up with our beliefs. Surely you would consider all of your information in order to make informed decisions?

And as people interested in staying informed, we need to be ready to question our motivations and beliefs instead of falling into the trap of justifying our way of existing by instantly marking off information without giving it a "fair trial".

I'm asking you to provide me that fair trial.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I guess I'll reiterate in a different light.

Snopes takes each individual claim made against Australia and systematically explains how the data can be distorted and even provides links to direct evidence. They don't just say "according to the AIC they are wrong", they provide me with some context even.

Your sources didn't really counter any of the information presented by Snopes. It just repeated a bunch of numbers that "came from AIC". It is already suspect that they don't directly link me to the figures being used, and instead places the burden on me to find them.

Can you provide them, or shall I start digging?

Snoopes is what it is a defensive mechanism for the democratic party .

Do you mark off every study that runs counter to your beliefs as being liberally funded propaganda? Realize that in the infinite range of information the universe has to provide us, there will be examples that don't exactly line up with our beliefs. Surely you would consider all of your information in order to make informed decisions?

And as people interested in staying informed, we need to be ready to question our motivations and beliefs instead of falling into the trap of justifying our way of existing by instantly marking off information without giving it a "fair trial".

I'm asking you to provide me that fair trial.

Do try and keep up.
While gun related homicide has dropped to an historic low of 13%, the proportion of people dying through stab wounds has increased from 30% to 41% over the last 10 years

Homicide in Australia: 2008?09 to 2009?10 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report

 

[Aurin]

I'm trying to keep up, that's why I'm asking you to help me out. =)

That's a very interesting article. I guess I'll begin by pointing out that the information presented isn't really specifically challenged by Snopes so we're not really "debunking" Snopes with it, but it's still very interesting and I thank you for providing it.

I've read through the study itself and it seems you've made nearly the same error that Snopes was pointing out. The numbers you're using are the proportion of people who died to certain causes.

Let's look at the figures being presented. In Figure 1 we see the absolute magnitude of homicides committed. This number has dropped, especially from a considerable peak seen 10 years earlier. In Figure 2 we see the homicide rate per 100,000. Here the figure is at an all time low compared to the previous two decades.

Understand that the proportion is somewhat unwieldy. Consider the following example with arbitrarily used numbers. In one year there are 1000 homicides. 50% occur due to guns and 30% occur due to knives. That means 500 gun homicides and 300 knife homicides. Now a gun ban goes into effect. Ten years later there are 700 homicides. 20% occur due to guns and 43% occur due to knives. That means 140 gun homicides and 300 knife homicides.

As you can see in the preceding example, the number of knife homicides didn't even increase. The proportion increased just because less guns were being used in homicides--which is ultimately the purpose of a gun ban. It could mean that all of the people previously using guns are now using knives, but from the data in the study, we see that there are overall fewer homicides. So while some may have swapped to a life of knife-crime, others seem to have abandoned the way of the criminal. In fact, in the Abstract from which you quoted the proportion, they state nearly all of this before it.

Thank you for providing the information. I'll gladly continue with other articles if you'd like.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm trying to keep up, that's why I'm asking you to help me out. =)

That's a very interesting article. I guess I'll begin by pointing out that the information presented isn't really specifically challenged by Snopes so we're not really "debunking" Snopes with it, but it's still very interesting and I thank you for providing it.

I've read through the study itself and it seems you've made nearly the same error that Snopes was pointing out. The numbers you're using are the proportion of people who died to certain causes.

Let's look at the figures being presented. In Figure 1 we see the absolute magnitude of homicides committed. This number has dropped, especially from a considerable peak seen 10 years earlier. In Figure 2 we see the homicide rate per 100,000. Here the figure is at an all time low compared to the previous two decades.

Understand that the proportion is somewhat unwieldy. Consider the following example with arbitrarily used numbers. In one year there are 1000 homicides. 50% occur due to guns and 30% occur due to knives. That means 500 gun homicides and 300 knife homicides. Now a gun ban goes into effect. Ten years later there are 700 homicides. 20% occur due to guns and 43% occur due to knives. That means 140 gun homicides and 300 knife homicides.

As you can see in the preceding example, the number of knife homicides didn't even increase. The proportion increased just because less guns were being used in homicides--which is ultimately the purpose of a gun ban. It could mean that all of the people previously using guns are now using knives, but from the data in the study, we see that there are overall fewer homicides. So while some may have swapped to a life of knife-crime, others seem to have abandoned the way of the criminal. In fact, in the Abstract from which you quoted the proportion, they state nearly all of this before it.

Thank you for providing the information. I'll gladly continue with other articles if you'd like.

What part of this did you misunderstand?

the proportion of people dying through stab wounds has increased from 30% to 41% over the last 10 years

 

[Aurin]

What part of this did you misunderstand?

the proportion of people dying through stab wounds has increased from 30% to 41% over the last 10 years

I responded to that, quite directly actually. Just repeating it won't change anything. I welcome you to address my statements or leave comment.

To reiterate, Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the study that you're pulling your information from discounts the substance of your claim. Also, by the wonderful world of mathematics, proportions are unwieldy and my previous illustration is free to be reviewed.

Statistical methods and data takes some doing to understand. You'll have to use some effort to analyze the varying information, not just cherry pick statements that stimulate your hypothalamus.

 

[GHook93]

The UK has had lower gun crime than the USA for years.
However lets look at mass shootings in the years before and since gun bans were enacted.

Mass shootings happened on average every 14 to 20 years.
Still no change in that statistic since gun control.

Gun control is pointless in reducing mass shootings.

Or it could be like the Cumbria shooting. That guy just drove around from town to town blasting people at will and no one could stop him. No citizens had any guns and not even the police had any guns. They had to wait until the army showed up and that is when he killed himself!

Cumbria shootings: 12 dead as gunman goes on killing spree | UK news | The Guardian

 

[Euroconservativ]

On top of that nearly 80% of homicides committed by guns in America are gang related! Just like the gang-bangers in Mexico or Venezuela, nearly all the murders are committed by a gun that was obtain ILLEGALLY (NEARLY 100%)!!! Therefore, gun control isn't going to prevent gang-bangers from obtaining firearms! They already obtain them illegally!

South and Central America are among the most violent areas in the world:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of those countries have left-wing to far left governments and, of course, strict gun control laws.

What Percentage Of American Murders Are Gang Related? | Extrano's Alley, a gun blog
Doing some data mining with 2010 numbers, and extrapolating from the number of murders solved by arrest to all known murders, it appears that approximately 78 percent, slightly more than three out of every four murders, are gang related.

For 2010, the FBI reported 14,478 murders and non-negligent homicides. Of those, approximately 11,290 were in some way gang related.

And, for those of a thoughtful turn of mind, those numbers mean that were it not for gang activity, the United States homicide rate would be in the 1 per 100,000 range.

I have read this in a couple of major european newspapers: "a tragedy like the Aurora theater shooting happens twice a day in the United States".

Of course, you won't hear or read anything about gang violence in large urban areas. But any other shooting makes the news and reaches every important international news agency.