Connecticut (et al)

[laklak]

Most dangerous cities in the U.S.

10 Stockton, CA
9 Baltimore, MD
8 Atlanta, GA
7 Birmingham, AL
6 Little Rock, AK
5 Memphis, TN
4 Oakland, CA
3 St. Louis, MO
2 Detroit, MI
1 Flint, MI

http://bossip.com/599353/its-murrrddddd ... s-2012/15/

Pretty much evenly split between states with easy access and states with restrictive gun laws. Where's that correlation, again?

[Ian]

State and city laws are more or less irrelevant. Guns travel across state lines as easily as cars do. Why else to you suppose Mayor Bloomberg and others have been doing so much to try and tighten gun laws in other states? For example, a lot of criminals from NYC take road trips to Virginia in order to stock up.

State-by-state policies mean rather little. Changes in federal policies are what are needed.

Besides, the real correlation in question isn't the likelihood of violent crime but the intensity of it when it does occur, i.e. the likelihood of being shot and killed/seriously wounded vice the likelihood of being killed or wounded if no firearms are present. In that matter, the US rates stand out above the rest of the advanced nations. It shouldn't take any great analytical skill to recognize that the US also has by far the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. It shouldn't take any great analytical skill to recognize that correlation... but some are still convinced that this is a strange coincidence.

[FBM]

Most dangerous cities in the U.S.

10 Stockton, CA
9 Baltimore, MD
8 Atlanta, GA
7 Birmingham, AL
6 Little Rock, AK
5 Memphis, TN
4 Oakland, CA
3 St. Louis, MO
2 Detroit, MI
1 Flint, MI

http://bossip.com/599353/its-murrrddddd ... s-2012/15/


Pretty much evenly split between states with easy access and states with restrictive gun laws. Where's that correlation, again?

Ouch. Interesting.

[Jason]

To FBM

That is not what I am saying.
...

Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that it's implied. Why not include people in "under-developed" countries in the stats? The "comparing apples and oranges" argument is just another way to say that "those people are so different from us that they don't count." It's remnants of classical idealism, which was used to justify colonial exploitation in Africa, the Americas, Asia, etc. They're poor, often dark-skinned, speak different languages, don't have the same kind of educational, governmental, etc, systems we have, etc, therefore they don't count. It's arbitrary and culturally/racially arrogant. Not directing that at you, mind you, just at the idea.

It depends totally on the purpose of any comparison. A key reason for comparing a number of different societies is to analyse any striking features, such as the high rate of gun homicides in the US. A comparison works best if we try to restrict the number of possible variables as much as possible. These emphatically do not include race (e.g.. South Korea and Japan can justly be compared to the US), but certainly should include:
* presence or absence of armed conflict/civil war (any point in including Syria at the moment?)
* democracy vs other political systems such as military dictatorships
* rule of law
* economic development level

If we restrict the comparison to a basket of countries with minimal variation in such key features, then we are not confounding our conclusions by the actions of as many variables.

You're attempting to make a socio-economic comparison between countries. The most important part of "socio-economic" in this context is the "socio". Japan and South Korea have very different societies than the U.S.A. and so cannot be compared.

[FBM]

I'm not sure why being from a relatively poor country somehow means that you're not subject to the same drives as us rich "developed" folk. It strikes me that we excitedly point out how similar we are to chimps, but in a different context make finer and finer distinctions among ourselves.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Who had the cheek to say "Rebut that".

It is cheek because that rebuttal had already been made. I showed, with a clear reference and detailed graphs, that gun ownership over 30 years has actually dropped - not risen. There have been three different ways of estimating changes in gun ownership, since no official records are kept.

1. Phone surveys of gun ownership.
2. Face to face surveys of gun ownership.
3. A record of how many applications for background checks.

Methods 1 and 2 show little change over the past 15 years, but a great drop in gun ownership over the past 30 years.
Method 3 indicates an increase in applications for background checks, which must be what Seth is basing his claims on. However, those background checks do not indicate more gun owners. They are more likely to indicate gun owners buying their second, third, fourth etc guns, since this result is at odds with the other two methods. I think it is obvious to anyone that no increase in gun crime will happen due to a person owning more than one gun, since only the first gun is needed for a gun crime to happen. More guns in one person's possession will not increase the likelihood of that person committing a gun crime.

Seth is arguing that gun ownership has increased with no associated increase in gun crime. That theory is crap because the data indicates no increase in gun owners. With the same number, or a smaller number of people owning guns, we would not expect an increase in gun crime, and that is what we see.

So once more Seth makes an argument by ignoring the data.

[Gallstones]

To Seth

Who had the cheek to say "Rebut that".

It is cheek because that rebuttal had already been made. I showed, with a clear reference and detailed graphs, that gun ownership over 30 years has actually dropped - not risen. There have been three different ways of estimating changes in gun ownership, since no official records are kept.

1. Phone surveys of gun ownership.
2. Face to face surveys of gun ownership.
3. A record of how many applications for background checks.

Methods 1 and 2 show little change over the past 15 years, but a great drop in gun ownership over the past 30 years.
Method 3 indicates an increase in applications for background checks, which must be what Seth is basing his claims on. However, those background checks do not indicate more gun owners. They are more likely to indicate gun owners buying their second, third, fourth etc guns, since this result is at odds with the other two methods. I think it is obvious to anyone that no increase in gun crime will happen due to a person owning more than one gun, since only the first gun is needed for a gun crime to happen. More guns in one person's possession will not increase the likelihood of that person committing a gun crime.

Seth is arguing that gun ownership has increased with no associated increase in gun crime. That theory is crap because the data indicates no increase in gun owners. With the same number, or a smaller number of people owning guns, we would not expect an increase in gun crime, and that is what we see.

So once more Seth makes an argument by ignoring the data.

So what you are saying then instead is that a drop in numbers of firearms purchased did not result in a drop in crimes and deaths by firearms.

[Blind groper]

Actually, Gallstones, over the period in which gun ownership dropped, there was also a drop in numbers of murders. The current murder rate of 4.2 per 100,000 per year is substantially lower than the murder rate as it was in previous years, when gun ownership was a lot higher. In 1991 for example, the homicide rate was 9.8 killings per 100,000 people per year.

The relationship between gun ownership and killings is not a simple one, and half the ownership will not mean half the killings, since attitudes and human behaviour also play a part. As I have always said, the high murder rate in the USA is to a large extent about gun ownership and gun culture. Not just ownership alone. But fewer guns are a very good thing.

If Americans want to reduce the numbers of killings, and get closer to other civilised countries, a change will be needed in attitudes also. My own opinion is that rescinding the second amendment would be a damn good start to that, since we see Seth and yourself quoting the second amendment as if it were a bible to a Christian fundamentalist. Remove that amendment and it may mean fewer people thinking that owning and carrying around ( and using in a lethal way) tools for murder is theirs by right.

[JimC]

To FBM

That is not what I am saying.
...

Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that it's implied. Why not include people in "under-developed" countries in the stats? The "comparing apples and oranges" argument is just another way to say that "those people are so different from us that they don't count." It's remnants of classical idealism, which was used to justify colonial exploitation in Africa, the Americas, Asia, etc. They're poor, often dark-skinned, speak different languages, don't have the same kind of educational, governmental, etc, systems we have, etc, therefore they don't count. It's arbitrary and culturally/racially arrogant. Not directing that at you, mind you, just at the idea.

It depends totally on the purpose of any comparison. A key reason for comparing a number of different societies is to analyse any striking features, such as the high rate of gun homicides in the US. A comparison works best if we try to restrict the number of possible variables as much as possible. These emphatically do not include race (e.g.. South Korea and Japan can justly be compared to the US), but certainly should include:
* presence or absence of armed conflict/civil war (any point in including Syria at the moment?)
* democracy vs other political systems such as military dictatorships
* rule of law
* economic development level

If we restrict the comparison to a basket of countries with minimal variation in such key features, then we are not confounding our conclusions by the actions of as many variables.

You're attempting to make a socio-economic comparison between countries. The most important part of "socio-economic" in this context is the "socio". Japan and South Korea have very different societies than the U.S.A. and so cannot be compared.

I disagree. They are modern, democratic societies, with people working at a similar technological level as the US, operating on the rule of law and with no current armed insurrections. The point of the argument is to see how modern democracies without gun fetishes compare to the US in terms of homicide rates.

BG has shown repeatedly that there is a very straightforward answer...

Extremely favourably...

If you want to make the comparison with countries with a mainly white, caucasian base (Oz, NZ, Britain, Germany, Scandinavian countries etc.), feel free, but then FBM's charge of racism in the comparison becomes real...

[JimC]

To FBM

That is not what I am saying.
...

Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that it's implied. Why not include people in "under-developed" countries in the stats? The "comparing apples and oranges" argument is just another way to say that "those people are so different from us that they don't count." It's remnants of classical idealism, which was used to justify colonial exploitation in Africa, the Americas, Asia, etc. They're poor, often dark-skinned, speak different languages, don't have the same kind of educational, governmental, etc, systems we have, etc, therefore they don't count. It's arbitrary and culturally/racially arrogant. Not directing that at you, mind you, just at the idea.

It depends totally on the purpose of any comparison. A key reason for comparing a number of different societies is to analyse any striking features, such as the high rate of gun homicides in the US. A comparison works best if we try to restrict the number of possible variables as much as possible. These emphatically do not include race (e.g.. South Korea and Japan can justly be compared to the US), but certainly should include:
* presence or absence of armed conflict/civil war (any point in including Syria at the moment?)
* democracy vs other political systems such as military dictatorships
* rule of law
* economic development level

If we restrict the comparison to a basket of countries with minimal variation in such key features, then we are not confounding our conclusions by the actions of as many variables.

Why economic development level?

Eliminating one major potential variable in the comparison. In countries with a very low average income, most citizens will not be able to afford a personal firearm - their possession will be limited to military or criminal gangs. In Oz, Japan, Korea or Germany, there is no economic barrier to widespread gun ownership - the barrier is a combination of law and tradition.

[FBM]

I'm not accusing anyone of intentional racism, by the way. But it is often very subtle. There is also economic elitism to be wary of. We are not a different animal because we are in materially wealthier societies. We are not apples to their oranges. We're all equally fruity.

[Jason]

To FBM

That is not what I am saying.
...

Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that it's implied. Why not include people in "under-developed" countries in the stats? The "comparing apples and oranges" argument is just another way to say that "those people are so different from us that they don't count." It's remnants of classical idealism, which was used to justify colonial exploitation in Africa, the Americas, Asia, etc. They're poor, often dark-skinned, speak different languages, don't have the same kind of educational, governmental, etc, systems we have, etc, therefore they don't count. It's arbitrary and culturally/racially arrogant. Not directing that at you, mind you, just at the idea.

It depends totally on the purpose of any comparison. A key reason for comparing a number of different societies is to analyse any striking features, such as the high rate of gun homicides in the US. A comparison works best if we try to restrict the number of possible variables as much as possible. These emphatically do not include race (e.g.. South Korea and Japan can justly be compared to the US), but certainly should include:
* presence or absence of armed conflict/civil war (any point in including Syria at the moment?)
* democracy vs other political systems such as military dictatorships
* rule of law
* economic development level

If we restrict the comparison to a basket of countries with minimal variation in such key features, then we are not confounding our conclusions by the actions of as many variables.

You're attempting to make a socio-economic comparison between countries. The most important part of "socio-economic" in this context is the "socio". Japan and South Korea have very different societies than the U.S.A. and so cannot be compared.

I disagree. They are modern, democratic societies, with people working at a similar technological level as the US, operating on the rule of law and with no current armed insurrections. The point of the argument is to see how modern democracies without gun fetishes compare to the US in terms of homicide rates.

BG has shown repeatedly that there is a very straightforward answer...

Extremely favourably...

If you want to make the comparison with countries with a mainly white, caucasian base (Oz, NZ, Britain, Germany, Scandinavian countries etc.), feel free, but then FBM's charge of racism in the comparison becomes real...

Facile similarities without any depth. You're also using terms like 'modern' and 'democratic' like we've agreed on a definition in the context. Level of technology? That's practically ubiquitous among first world nations. 'Rule of law'? Once again ubiquitous among the majority of nations in the world - an interesting question to ponder is 'what law(s)'.

The point of this line of argument is to supply evidence for a conclusion that's already been decided upon and the way it is done is by the obfuscation the failure of the argument on its most fundamental level by using ambiguous verbiage and irrelevant and misleading points of comparison so that you may convince the dimwitted and uneducated of the evident nature of your conclusion. Perhaps even convince yourselves of it as well. It won't fly here.

Groper has never shown a thing in the months I've been following his arguments, looking at his 'evidence' and 'data', and responding when I can be arsed to address the sort of specious nonsense he calls a line of reasoning.

In case it hasn't become clear to you by now, what I'm saying is that either you compare like to like by finding a society which matches that of the U.S.A. sufficiently so as to eliminate any unreasonable bias, or you eschew your facile, arbitrary, self-serving, misleading, and false, selective comparisons entirely and compare the U.S.A. to any other nation on earth. Sociology being very complex and all it may take you some time to build up a credible argument on the basis of national comparisons, if it can be done at all.

Still not clear? Arguments based on the comparison of nations, by whatever criteria you decide to invent, are invalid, misleading, garbage.

[Tyrannical]

Most dangerous cities in the U.S.

10 Stockton, CA
9 Baltimore, MD
8 Atlanta, GA
7 Birmingham, AL
6 Little Rock, AK
5 Memphis, TN
4 Oakland, CA
3 St. Louis, MO
2 Detroit, MI
1 Flint, MI

http://bossip.com/599353/its-murrrddddd ... s-2012/15/


Pretty much evenly split between states with easy access and states with restrictive gun laws. Where's that correlation, again?

Ouch. Interesting.

Naw, the interesting part is who commits all that crime
Son's of Obama, at it again of course. Aside from the two California cities where it is a mixture between Blacks and Hispanics.

We need to be less concerned with inanimate objects, more time concerned with the real cause of crime; behavioral genetics.

[FBM]

Oh, doo-doo, Tyr.

[aspire1670]

Facile similarities without any depth. You're also using terms like 'modern' and 'democratic' like we've agreed on a definition in the context. Level of technology? That's practically ubiquitous among first world nations. 'Rule of law'? Once again ubiquitous among the majority of nations in the world - an interesting question to ponder is 'what law(s)'.

The point of this line of argument is to supply evidence for a conclusion that's already been decided upon and the way it is done is by the obfuscation the failure of the argument on its most fundamental level by using ambiguous verbiage and irrelevant and misleading points of comparison so that you may convince the dimwitted and uneducated of the evident nature of your conclusion. Perhaps even convince yourselves of it as well. It won't fly here.

Groper has never shown a thing in the months I've been following his arguments, looking at his 'evidence' and 'data', and responding when I can be arsed to address the sort of specious nonsense he calls a line of reasoning.

In case it hasn't become clear to you by now, what I'm saying is that either you compare like to like by finding a society which matches that of the U.S.A. sufficiently so as to eliminate any unreasonable bias, or you eschew your facile, arbitrary, self-serving, misleading, and false, selective comparisons entirely and compare the U.S.A. to any other nation on earth. Sociology being very complex and all it may take you some time to build up a credible argument on the basis of national comparisons, if it can be done at all.

Still not clear? Arguments based on the comparison of nations, by whatever criteria you decide to invent, are invalid, misleading, garbage.

Shorter Fak.... "Guns only kill people in other countries and I know this because I compare other countries to the USA. Wait, what?"