Total Posts:132|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

guns make the country less safe, usually

linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
n general, states and localities with more gun control have less death. if you do a literature review on the subject, the results are undeniable. here are some links that show all this, with a literature review.

http://www.politifact.com...

https://academic.oup.com...

literature reviews are similar in tracking the number of guns v the murder rate of various geographical regions. just from what i can see doing my own review, i'd say it's probably much higher than ninety percent of researchers who agree.

"reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions "is quite consistent " where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates." "

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

http://www.factcheck.org...

women are five times more likely to die when her partner has a gun. this is startling in itself, but rubs against everyone who says criminals just run out and get guns. plus it just makes sense that not everyone who is denied a gun will run out and get one, not everyone is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if a person happens to not have a gun when they go off on their partner, a life is likely to be saved.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

i dont know the exact stat off hand, but you are more likely to die in an invasion if you have a gun (probably because you are more likely to engage the enemy instead of laying low) and you are more likely to die from the very gun itself or another one if you have a gun for defense. it doesn't end the way people plan.

https://academic.oup.com...

for every perpetrator who dies from a gun over thirty are murdered. the exact number is like two hundred and fifty people are perptrators who are justifiably killed each year. that's extremely small considering the hundreds of millions of people here and the thousand upon thousands of people murdered, if you are banking on being the guy who has to shoot someone. there's something to be said about defensive uses of guns in general, and particular when you dont even need to pull the trigger to fend off violence, but it seems more likely the main reason people are more likely to need a gun in defense is because there are so many guns out there to begin with.

here is some gun control and how effective most experts conclude:
https://www.nytimes.com...

here is a country that reduced its gun homicides and more notably stopped its mass shootings:
http://www.slate.com...
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 4:28:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

What would you propose that requires overturning the current precedent?
Chaos88
Posts: 4,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.
Chaos88
Posts: 4,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 4:42:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

http://www.aic.gov.au...


Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

https://mises.org...
Nd2400
Posts: 3,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 5:03:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

You have to look at the population. America have over 325 millions and Australia's has over 24 millions. So, looking at the percentage you looking at don't add up.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 5:34:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

the homicide rate didn't increase, it decreased. the overall number of deaths spiked somewhat, but not the rate.

there was an overall decline of violent crimes in the period discussed.
people often act like the increase in guns in the usa while murders went down shows an inverse relationship, but the worldwide trend debunks that. just look at the science i cited for the real relationship.
it is admitted that much of the decline in australia isn't because of gun laws but it was already declining. but some studies show that for every percent increase in guns there is a percent increase in death. you can deduce how much is probably due to gun laws and how much is to simply already going down.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 5:39:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 5:34:32 PM, linate wrote:
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

the homicide rate didn't increase, it decreased. the overall number of deaths spiked somewhat, but not the rate.

there was an overall decline of violent crimes in the period discussed.
people often act like the increase in guns in the usa while murders went down shows an inverse relationship, but the worldwide trend debunks that. just look at the science i cited for the real relationship.
it is admitted that much of the decline in australia isn't because of gun laws but it was already declining. but some studies show that for every percent increase in guns there is a percent increase in death. you can deduce how much is probably due to gun laws and how much is to simply already going down.

australia over time by the numbers, rates and raw numbers
http://www.gunpolicy.org...
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 6:03:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
which reminds me. people often say the number of guns in australia is back to where it was when port arthur laws happend as if the number of guns can't explain why homicdes fell so mmuch. the problem is that the gun per person rate did fall, almost by a third. the citation for that is in the gun policy link where i showed australia by the numbers.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 6:25:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Politifact rates a claim as "mostly true" that is, by their own admission, completely true, even calling it a "sweeping claim" to say that "states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."

This is the sh*t they pull on Trump all the time, except that with Trump, "mostly true" is "mostly false".
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 9:26:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 6:03:50 PM, linate wrote:
which reminds me. people often say the number of guns in australia is back to where it was when port arthur laws happend as if the number of guns can't explain why homicdes fell so mmuch. the problem is that the gun per person rate did fall, almost by a third. the citation for that is in the gun policy link where i showed australia by the numbers.

You are proposing a gun buy-back?
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 9:34:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 5:03:09 PM, Nd2400 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

You have to look at the population. America have over 325 millions and Australia's has over 24 millions. So, looking at the percentage you looking at don't add up.

Isn't that exactly what percentages are for though?
Nd2400
Posts: 3,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 10:21:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 9:34:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/19/2017 5:03:09 PM, Nd2400 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

You have to look at the population. America have over 325 millions and Australia's has over 24 millions. So, looking at the percentage you looking at don't add up.

Isn't that exactly what percentages are for though?

But it the wrong percentage... How can you do 324 million to a population of 24 million. If you compare it the same way it will be different numbers. That's all.
Chaos88
Posts: 4,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 10:33:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 10:21:49 PM, Nd2400 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 9:34:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/19/2017 5:03:09 PM, Nd2400 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

You have to look at the population. America have over 325 millions and Australia's has over 24 millions. So, looking at the percentage you looking at don't add up.

Isn't that exactly what percentages are for though?

But it the wrong percentage... How can you do 324 million to a population of 24 million. If you compare it the same way it will be different numbers. That's all.

No, Australia only has 324 murders per year. Period. The USA has, like, 35,000. You compare rates for precisely this reason.
Chaos88
Posts: 4,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 10:41:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 5:34:32 PM, linate wrote:
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

the homicide rate didn't increase, it decreased. the overall number of deaths spiked somewhat, but not the rate.

I meant to say for the first point that the number of murders increased, not the rate did. However, it is entirely reasonable to assume the rate increased when the murders increased, as population does not influx in ways that would negate a spike like that. If the numbers were consistent, the rate would likely lower, but if there is an increase in murders of 10%, the murder rate very much increased unless the population also increased 10% or more, which is highly unlikely.

So, while I did misspeak, it does not negate the question, which you only tangentially addressed.

there was an overall decline of violent crimes in the period discussed.
people often act like the increase in guns in the usa while murders went down shows an inverse relationship, but the worldwide trend debunks that. just look at the science i cited for the real relationship.
it is admitted that much of the decline in australia isn't because of gun laws but it was already declining. but some studies show that for every percent increase in guns there is a percent increase in death. you can deduce how much is probably due to gun laws and how much is to simply already going down.

So, if the relationship is not causal, then why suggest it is?
Chaos88
Posts: 4,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 10:46:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

here is a country that reduced its gun homicides and more notably stopped its mass shootings:
http://www.slate.com...

You forget to mention that Australia has never had a real problem with mass shootings. Did the article not address that? From the source I posted, which is from their government, you can see that homicide incidents are roughly equal to the number of homicides. This means that when people kill in Australia, they generally only target one person.
Nd2400
Posts: 3,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2017 11:01:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 10:33:03 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 10:21:49 PM, Nd2400 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 9:34:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/19/2017 5:03:09 PM, Nd2400 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

You have to look at the population. America have over 325 millions and Australia's has over 24 millions. So, looking at the percentage you looking at don't add up.

Isn't that exactly what percentages are for though?

But it the wrong percentage... How can you do 324 million to a population of 24 million. If you compare it the same way it will be different numbers. That's all.

No, Australia only has 324 murders per year. Period. The USA has, like, 35,000. You compare rates for precisely this reason.

Of course the US going to have more killings why because it has over 324 millions. As for Australia it has 24 millions so the numbers of murder is going to be way down...
Chaos88
Posts: 4,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 12:21:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 11:01:57 PM, Nd2400 wrote:

Of course the US going to have more killings why because it has over 324 millions. As for Australia it has 24 millions so the numbers of murder is going to be way down...

Yes, which is why you look at rates, as that takes into account size. Do you know what rates represent?

If there are eight slices of pizza, and I eat two, I ate 25% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat two, I only ate 10% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat four slices, even though I had more slices, I still ate less pizza.

This is how rates work, by using proportionality.
If the USA has 15x the population, than, all things being equal, we should have 15x more murders. We do not, we have, like 45x more, which means the USA has a higher rate of murder.
Nd2400
Posts: 3,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 12:28:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2017 12:21:29 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 11:01:57 PM, Nd2400 wrote:

Of course the US going to have more killings why because it has over 324 millions. As for Australia it has 24 millions so the numbers of murder is going to be way down...

Yes, which is why you look at rates, as that takes into account size. Do you know what rates represent?

If there are eight slices of pizza, and I eat two, I ate 25% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat two, I only ate 10% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat four slices, even though I had more slices, I still ate less pizza.

This is how rates work, by using proportionality.
If the USA has 15x the population, than, all things being equal, we should have 15x more murders. We do not, we have, like 45x more, which means the USA has a higher rate of murder.

Yes of course. What you just said make sense.
I will agree with that. So, what are you arguing for?
Do you agree on having stricter gun laws?
Chaos88
Posts: 4,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 12:34:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2017 12:28:46 AM, Nd2400 wrote:

Yes of course. What you just said make sense.
I will agree with that. So, what are you arguing for?
Do you agree on having stricter gun laws?

I not really arguing a stance on the issue, but merely pointing out that guns are not the issue - society is.

As far as if new gun control measures are needed or advisable, I would first prefer to see the current ones enforced properly to then decide what course should be taken - more, less, or status quo.

Generally, I would prefer to keep guns less controlled, as it offers a sense of protection, and may be the only thing to fight back lethal force (even though, most murders are not by strangers).
Nd2400
Posts: 3,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 1:23:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2017 12:34:32 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/20/2017 12:28:46 AM, Nd2400 wrote:

Yes of course. What you just said make sense.
I will agree with that. So, what are you arguing for?
Do you agree on having stricter gun laws?

I not really arguing a stance on the issue, but merely pointing out that guns are not the issue - society is.

As far as if new gun control measures are needed or advisable, I would first prefer to see the current ones enforced properly to then decide what course should be taken - more, less, or status quo.

Generally, I would prefer to keep guns less controlled, as it offers a sense of protection, and may be the only thing to fight back lethal force (even though, most murders are not by strangers).

I could accept that answer. You not like most gun enthusiast. That don't want too heard about gun laws or for new ones.

I also agree with you on this part gun isn't the main problem, society is. But i would like for tougher gun laws, since society already show it can't handle most high power rifles. Mass shootings will continue to happen. And it will get worst. The last 10 years already show this thread will continue to get worst not better. It not going to fix it self. People need to set up and demand for tougher gun laws for all the state's not just a few. Or else it wont work.

But even that is a pipe dream. Because not every one is taking gun control serous enough, so the government won't either.

So, i guess we just have to wait and wait some more. Until mass shooting get worst. And more frequently. Then maybe something will get done...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 5:18:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2017 1:23:45 AM, Nd2400 wrote:
At 11/20/2017 12:34:32 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/20/2017 12:28:46 AM, Nd2400 wrote:

Yes of course. What you just said make sense.
I will agree with that. So, what are you arguing for?
Do you agree on having stricter gun laws?

I not really arguing a stance on the issue, but merely pointing out that guns are not the issue - society is.

As far as if new gun control measures are needed or advisable, I would first prefer to see the current ones enforced properly to then decide what course should be taken - more, less, or status quo.

Generally, I would prefer to keep guns less controlled, as it offers a sense of protection, and may be the only thing to fight back lethal force (even though, most murders are not by strangers).

I could accept that answer. You not like most gun enthusiast. That don't want too heard about gun laws or for new ones.

I also agree with you on this part gun isn't the main problem, society is. But i would like for tougher gun laws, since society already show it can't handle most high power rifles. Mass shootings will continue to happen. And it will get worst. The last 10 years already show this thread will continue to get worst not better. It not going to fix it self. People need to set up and demand for tougher gun laws for all the state's not just a few. Or else it wont work.

But even that is a pipe dream. Because not every one is taking gun control serous enough, so the government won't either.

So, i guess we just have to wait and wait some more. Until mass shooting get worst. And more frequently. Then maybe something will get done...

Would you please instruct the glass as to how many people were killed by a "high powered rifle", what a "high powered rifle is", and why that is some how more important than how many people are killed by handguns each year?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 1:51:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 10:41:27 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 5:34:32 PM, linate wrote:
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

the homicide rate didn't increase, it decreased. the overall number of deaths spiked somewhat, but not the rate.

I meant to say for the first point that the number of murders increased, not the rate did. However, it is entirely reasonable to assume the rate increased when the murders increased, as population does not influx in ways that would negate a spike like that. If the numbers were consistent, the rate would likely lower, but if there is an increase in murders of 10%, the murder rate very much increased unless the population also increased 10% or more, which is highly unlikely.

So, while I did misspeak, it does not negate the question, which you only tangentially addressed.

there was an overall decline of violent crimes in the period discussed.
people often act like the increase in guns in the usa while murders went down shows an inverse relationship, but the worldwide trend debunks that. just look at the science i cited for the real relationship.
it is admitted that much of the decline in australia isn't because of gun laws but it was already declining. but some studies show that for every percent increase in guns there is a percent increase in death. you can deduce how much is probably due to gun laws and how much is to simply already going down.

So, if the relationship is not causal, then why suggest it is?

look at the link i provided. the rate went down while the raw numbers edged up slightly. rate is what matters.

they had a mass shooting almost every year before port arthur in ninety six, theyve had none since then. that is statistically significant.

the relationhip apepars to be causal, as evidenced by the studies i provided. guns go up, murder goes up. that doesn't mean there can't be a general trend where murders can go down while guns go up, because without the guns it would have went down further. the country as a whole is only one finding too, break it down into thousands of findings with state and local outcomes, and you will see a relationship. the overall trend is ananomolous from that.
inferno
Posts: 15,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 1:55:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:
n general, states and localities with more gun control have less death. if you do a literature review on the subject, the results are undeniable. here are some links that show all this, with a literature review.

http://www.politifact.com...

https://academic.oup.com...

literature reviews are similar in tracking the number of guns v the murder rate of various geographical regions. just from what i can see doing my own review, i'd say it's probably much higher than ninety percent of researchers who agree.

"reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions "is quite consistent " where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates." "

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

http://www.factcheck.org...

women are five times more likely to die when her partner has a gun. this is startling in itself, but rubs against everyone who says criminals just run out and get guns. plus it just makes sense that not everyone who is denied a gun will run out and get one, not everyone is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if a person happens to not have a gun when they go off on their partner, a life is likely to be saved.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

i dont know the exact stat off hand, but you are more likely to die in an invasion if you have a gun (probably because you are more likely to engage the enemy instead of laying low) and you are more likely to die from the very gun itself or another one if you have a gun for defense. it doesn't end the way people plan.

https://academic.oup.com...

for every perpetrator who dies from a gun over thirty are murdered. the exact number is like two hundred and fifty people are perptrators who are justifiably killed each year. that's extremely small considering the hundreds of millions of people here and the thousand upon thousands of people murdered, if you are banking on being the guy who has to shoot someone. there's something to be said about defensive uses of guns in general, and particular when you dont even need to pull the trigger to fend off violence, but it seems more likely the main reason people are more likely to need a gun in defense is because there are so many guns out there to begin with.

here is some gun control and how effective most experts conclude:
https://www.nytimes.com...

here is a country that reduced its gun homicides and more notably stopped its mass shootings:
http://www.slate.com...

This is inconclusive. Guns are not the problem. It is an object. It is about the conscious mind behind the gun. Not the gun itself.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 1:55:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2017 5:03:09 PM, Nd2400 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 4:40:40 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 3:17:06 PM, linate wrote:

If the USA is a poster child for loose gun regulations, and Australia is applauded for its safety and gun control measures:

Can you explain why, in Australia, after sweeping gun control legislation in 1996, the homicide rate increased for three years, then decreased, then spiked to its highest level ever in 2002, and has been dropping ever since?

Can you further explain why from 1989 to 2007, the USA murder rate dropped more than Australia's in the same time frame? The USA dropped approximately 43%, where Australia dropped about 31%.

You have to look at the population. America have over 325 millions and Australia's has over 24 millions. So, looking at the percentage you looking at don't add up.

you are right
https://youtu.be...
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 1:56:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2017 12:21:29 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 11:01:57 PM, Nd2400 wrote:

Of course the US going to have more killings why because it has over 324 millions. As for Australia it has 24 millions so the numbers of murder is going to be way down...

Yes, which is why you look at rates, as that takes into account size. Do you know what rates represent?

If there are eight slices of pizza, and I eat two, I ate 25% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat two, I only ate 10% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat four slices, even though I had more slices, I still ate less pizza.

This is how rates work, by using proportionality.
If the USA has 15x the population, than, all things being equal, we should have 15x more murders. We do not, we have, like 45x more, which means the USA has a higher rate of murder.

usa had five murders per hundred thousand, australia is one point three. the usa is i think the worst in the developed world with murder.
the usa has like half the worlds guns but a small fraction of its population. our gun laws are lax. it's not rocket science.
inferno
Posts: 15,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 2:07:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2017 1:56:38 PM, linate wrote:
At 11/20/2017 12:21:29 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 11:01:57 PM, Nd2400 wrote:

Of course the US going to have more killings why because it has over 324 millions. As for Australia it has 24 millions so the numbers of murder is going to be way down...

Yes, which is why you look at rates, as that takes into account size. Do you know what rates represent?

If there are eight slices of pizza, and I eat two, I ate 25% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat two, I only ate 10% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat four slices, even though I had more slices, I still ate less pizza.

This is how rates work, by using proportionality.
If the USA has 15x the population, than, all things being equal, we should have 15x more murders. We do not, we have, like 45x more, which means the USA has a higher rate of murder.

usa had five murders per hundred thousand, australia is one point three. the usa is i think the worst in the developed world with murder.
the usa has like half the worlds guns but a small fraction of its population. our gun laws are lax. it's not rocket science.

You cannot compare a very antiquated indigenous continent, not country, to the US.
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 2:12:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2017 1:56:38 PM, linate wrote:
At 11/20/2017 12:21:29 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 11:01:57 PM, Nd2400 wrote:

Of course the US going to have more killings why because it has over 324 millions. As for Australia it has 24 millions so the numbers of murder is going to be way down...

Yes, which is why you look at rates, as that takes into account size. Do you know what rates represent?

If there are eight slices of pizza, and I eat two, I ate 25% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat two, I only ate 10% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat four slices, even though I had more slices, I still ate less pizza.

This is how rates work, by using proportionality.
If the USA has 15x the population, than, all things being equal, we should have 15x more murders. We do not, we have, like 45x more, which means the USA has a higher rate of murder.

usa had five murders per hundred thousand, australia is one point three. the usa is i think the worst in the developed world with murder.
the usa has like half the worlds guns but a small fraction of its population. our gun laws are lax. it's not rocket science.

Australia's gun ownership is going up, and their murders are going down though. What did you see in Australia to apply to the magic gun theory?
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 2:20:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2017 2:12:36 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/20/2017 1:56:38 PM, linate wrote:
At 11/20/2017 12:21:29 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 11:01:57 PM, Nd2400 wrote:

Of course the US going to have more killings why because it has over 324 millions. As for Australia it has 24 millions so the numbers of murder is going to be way down...

Yes, which is why you look at rates, as that takes into account size. Do you know what rates represent?

If there are eight slices of pizza, and I eat two, I ate 25% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat two, I only ate 10% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat four slices, even though I had more slices, I still ate less pizza.

This is how rates work, by using proportionality.
If the USA has 15x the population, than, all things being equal, we should have 15x more murders. We do not, we have, like 45x more, which means the USA has a higher rate of murder.

usa had five murders per hundred thousand, australia is one point three. the usa is i think the worst in the developed world with murder.
the usa has like half the worlds guns but a small fraction of its population. our gun laws are lax. it's not rocket science.

Australia's gun ownership is going up, and their murders are going down though. What did you see in Australia to apply to the magic gun theory?

the homicide rate in ninety six when they did their gun buy back and laws is half of what it was. there was a mass shooting every year before their sweeping guns laws and none afterward.
and it's not a magical theory, it's science. look at the studies i provided. it's strongly corrobrated science from experts in the top of their field.
and no, science isn't a liberal conspiracy.
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2017 2:24:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2017 2:20:05 PM, linate wrote:
At 11/20/2017 2:12:36 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/20/2017 1:56:38 PM, linate wrote:
At 11/20/2017 12:21:29 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 11/19/2017 11:01:57 PM, Nd2400 wrote:

Of course the US going to have more killings why because it has over 324 millions. As for Australia it has 24 millions so the numbers of murder is going to be way down...

Yes, which is why you look at rates, as that takes into account size. Do you know what rates represent?

If there are eight slices of pizza, and I eat two, I ate 25% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat two, I only ate 10% of the pizza.
However, if there are 20 slices, and I eat four slices, even though I had more slices, I still ate less pizza.

This is how rates work, by using proportionality.
If the USA has 15x the population, than, all things being equal, we should have 15x more murders. We do not, we have, like 45x more, which means the USA has a higher rate of murder.

usa had five murders per hundred thousand, australia is one point three. the usa is i think the worst in the developed world with murder.
the usa has like half the worlds guns but a small fraction of its population. our gun laws are lax. it's not rocket science.

Australia's gun ownership is going up, and their murders are going down though. What did you see in Australia to apply to the magic gun theory?

the homicide rate in ninety six when they did their gun buy back and laws is half of what it was. there was a mass shooting every year before their sweeping guns laws and none afterward.
and it's not a magical theory, it's science. look at the studies i provided. it's strongly corrobrated science from experts in the top of their field.
and no, science isn't a liberal conspiracy.

Why are you using the muder rate, when the total number of murders is decreasing? It makes sense that if the total number of murders is decreasing at the same time population and gun ownership is increasing that you have steep drops in rates.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.