Are these stats right?
- Thread starter Grayrock
- Start date
- Status
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
lol yeah where 8000 were probably police shootings.
Remember as well that all of these places have way less people than that of the us
Japan- 127m
GB- 64.1m
Switzerland- 8m
Canada- 35m
Isreal- 8m
West Germany- 63m
America has 320m residents. Which I think is worth noting, because that means our population is 40 x greater than that of isreal. So if we blew out the numbers, 58x40 is 2320... Taking another observation the amount of people killed every year by rifles in Isreal is likely to be far more than that of the US.
Another interesting resource, reflecting what i pointed out. Which is basically firearm deaths per capita, America isnt that bad!
Ya see, the only thing I learned in college with my psychology degree (heavily statistics driven) is that you can literally proove anything if you frame it in the right light.
Also. west germany hasnt been its own country since 1990....
Furthermore I doubt any of those places report as accurately as we do in the united states.
I could keep going.
To continue, theres a lot of other legislation that heavily effects this stuff... Life for instance in mexico civilians are not allowed to own "military caliber" anything, including handguns. Also there are lots of countries who have legislated out the use of hollow point ammo in handguns, greatly reducing their effectiveness.
Remember as well that all of these places have way less people than that of the us
Japan- 127m
GB- 64.1m
Switzerland- 8m
Canada- 35m
Isreal- 8m
West Germany- 63m
America has 320m residents. Which I think is worth noting, because that means our population is 40 x greater than that of isreal. So if we blew out the numbers, 58x40 is 2320... Taking another observation the amount of people killed every year by rifles in Isreal is likely to be far more than that of the US.
Another interesting resource, reflecting what i pointed out. Which is basically firearm deaths per capita, America isnt that bad!
Ya see, the only thing I learned in college with my psychology degree (heavily statistics driven) is that you can literally proove anything if you frame it in the right light.
Also. west germany hasnt been its own country since 1990....
Furthermore I doubt any of those places report as accurately as we do in the united states.
I could keep going.
To continue, theres a lot of other legislation that heavily effects this stuff... Life for instance in mexico civilians are not allowed to own "military caliber" anything, including handguns. Also there are lots of countries who have legislated out the use of hollow point ammo in handguns, greatly reducing their effectiveness.
Last edited:
Crayfish
Member
"Last year handguns killed"???? You telling me that nobody pulled the trigger ? That's it for me, I am locking up my handguns so they don't kill me in my sleep.
jerkface11
Member
That figure is probably 20 years old. It also counts ALL handgun shooting deaths. Murder, accidental, suicide, justifiable homicide, and police shootings.
OP
OP
Grayrock
Member
I like the "per capita" angle.
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
And? There are so many other variables at play here. The first is politics. Its no wonder our democratic cities have the highest murder rates. We also have A LOT more densely populated urban areas then any other on the list. With more people living in those areas where crime, globally, is statistically more likely. These things are called confounds. (Thanks psychology degree) and basically they're unforeseen variables that aren't being controlled for. Even the amount of firearms in the US would skew the stats. There's something like .9 guns for every one citizen. Which mean that its inevitable that some will end up in the hands of the wrong people. Banning them now would just take them out of the hands of the good guy.
Another confound is culture. Where else in the world is murder and crime glamorized to the youth in such a way? I'm not blaming it entirely on the entertainment industry, but there's no doubt there's influence there.
Last edited:
Rates are relevant. Gross numbers are not. Even then the rates of firearms homicides is higher here than other developed countries.
BUT, more valid than firearms homicide numbers are murder rates. That rate reflects the violence of a culture whether citizens are being shot or stabbed or bludgeoned. Our murder rates are high, but other developed countries are close and they don't have the fireams.
BUT, more valid than firearms homicide numbers are murder rates. That rate reflects the violence of a culture whether citizens are being shot or stabbed or bludgeoned. Our murder rates are high, but other developed countries are close and they don't have the fireams.
Last edited:
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
Yes, there are many variables.
Population density is not one. Europeans live in more densely populated cities than in the USA.
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
Hm... I mean, I really cant think of one place where its cities have less crime than its suburbs... Its a symptom of having more people in one place. There are densely populated areas that do not see as much crime. There's a contingency of social class/income here. What I'm saying is if you go to an area where folks have a lot of money, crime will inevitably be lower. But the caveat of the urban centers here in the US is that many of them are not so up scale. Every city has its ghettos. Some more so than others...Those places account for so much of the statistics. And I would venture to say we have more of them than any other place in the world. South america has some places with really bad statistics. Worse than the US. But those places are full of densly populated low income areas as well. And you can see the news from those places everyday.
Let's leave it at an agreement that there are many variables that account for the differences in violent crime in the USA and other developed countries. Most of those variables are off topic for THR.
For the OP, yes those stats are correct. They are old but if you do the current stats you will find similar numbers. If you look at firearm deaths per capita you will find the USA at the top of the statistics. If you look at murders as a whole we still led the pack among developed countries.
For the OP, yes those stats are correct. They are old but if you do the current stats you will find similar numbers. If you look at firearm deaths per capita you will find the USA at the top of the statistics. If you look at murders as a whole we still led the pack among developed countries.
Years ago, after the JFK assassination, some groups called for the roundup and summary execution of everyone who owned a gun of any kind or whose ancestors had ever owned a gun. I may be paranoid, but in spite of their clever lies, I don't think those people have ever changed that ultimate goal.
Jim
Jim
DeepSouth
Random Guy
CapnMac
Member
The stats in that ancient ad can be made to be correct. But, the intent is an emotional one, not a rational one. The counter argument that automobiles kill 10x more often than guns do is lost. The fact that almost 50% of all US 'gun violence' is criminal on criminal is lost, too.
Or that the foriegn numbers do not include all criminal homicide, just those commited with guns is also lost, too.
Or that the foriegn numbers do not include all criminal homicide, just those commited with guns is also lost, too.
DaisyCutter
Member
America still does good considering the racial diversity we've embraced.
Europe doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, Bloods or Crips.
When you look at the day room in any prison, and see 80% of the inmates aren't of European descent, why bother comparing the USA to Europe. Any argument that guns are the source of the violence will be short lived if someone were to reclassify the stats by race. Race is as big a variable as the firearms.
Send 12 million illegal aliens to the UK and see how their crime rate changes.
Isn't it like a whole 120 mile drive across the entirety of England? I can cross their territory TWICE on a tank of gas. The number of gun murders isn't directly comparable.
Last edited:
Europe has plenty of diversity. They take in more immigrants per capita than we do. If you keep up with international news you will notice that illegal immigrants are coming into Europe literally by the shipload.
As an example Germany is 20% foreign born and they expect another 800,000 immigrants this year alone (with a total population of only 80 million) They still manage to have a murder rate of 0.8 per 100,000 people compared to 4.7 per 100,000 in the USA.
As an example Germany is 20% foreign born and they expect another 800,000 immigrants this year alone (with a total population of only 80 million) They still manage to have a murder rate of 0.8 per 100,000 people compared to 4.7 per 100,000 in the USA.
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
So you've made your stance. Are you saying that the OP should just go ahead and agree with the image presented, and hop on the anti hand gun bandwagon?
Because that's kind of what it seems like. As Americans, we live here. We hear the stories, we live them as participants at times.
Yes, our firearm and handgun violence rates per capita are much higher then any other of the "developed countries". But anyone with half a brain knows its not the gun. Its the user. We do live in a somewhat violent society, but the numbers show its getting better every year since as early as 1980.
And despite the decrease in violent crime. So much of whats left is expected. Its folks who were living their lives in a way that would likely get them shot. I mean, can we really count gang on gang incidents? Which is what most of it is. These people (of any race) live their lives that way, no one is going to stop them, not a law, not a potential jail sentence, nothing. And those incidents usually don't spill out into the law abiding world. They can, but it often stays contained. Then we have all the cartel murders all along the border. Can we really count that? That's not even us for pete's sake.
But with all of these criminal elements we have to contend with as regular citizens, I sure am glad I'm given the undeniable right to carry my HANDGUN and USE IT should the need for self defense arise. Aren't you?
mljdeckard
Member
There are other misrepresentations working here as well. When they count the number for Britain, they are only counting the number of cases that were tried and convicted for homicide. They aren't including the cases that were unsolved or where the defendant pled to a lesser charge. (Most of them.) the claim that there 8 homicides a year in GB is patently absurd.
mljdeckard
Member
One telling item on the claim, how long has it been since West Germany existed?
skeptical_in_Ohio
Member
I've a couple of links that might add to the discussion.
First, despite some concerns with overall veracity there sometimes, on a quick look Wikipedia has a page with intentional homicide rates (not necessarily with a firearm). The years of data vary - the newest looked to be 2012, the oldest 2006. You can sort by any of the numbers for analysis. The US is somewhat high on this (compared to Europe), but Venezuela and Brazil - wow.
Next, I had seen this article from the UK Daily Mail, circa 2009. In this, when you look at overall rates of violent crime, at 466/100K residents the US wouldn't be in the top 10 in Europe.
First, despite some concerns with overall veracity there sometimes, on a quick look Wikipedia has a page with intentional homicide rates (not necessarily with a firearm). The years of data vary - the newest looked to be 2012, the oldest 2006. You can sort by any of the numbers for analysis. The US is somewhat high on this (compared to Europe), but Venezuela and Brazil - wow.
Next, I had seen this article from the UK Daily Mail, circa 2009. In this, when you look at overall rates of violent crime, at 466/100K residents the US wouldn't be in the top 10 in Europe.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
The American Rifleman warned in the September 2015 issue (page 18) that we are entering an extremely well-financed statistical war with the anti-gunners and decried the cherry-picking of numbers that are and will be distorted by the antis.
Quite some years ago the NRA published a list of "lies," with specific counter-arguments to each one. I expect they will do this again in the near future.
You can expect a deluge of cherry-picked "statistics" to be forthcoming from the antis, and OP's example is one of them.
This pro-gun bit of "propaganda" is interesting and amusing. Ya want ya statistics? I gotcha statistics right here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
Terry, 230RN
Quite some years ago the NRA published a list of "lies," with specific counter-arguments to each one. I expect they will do this again in the near future.
You can expect a deluge of cherry-picked "statistics" to be forthcoming from the antis, and OP's example is one of them.
This pro-gun bit of "propaganda" is interesting and amusing. Ya want ya statistics? I gotcha statistics right here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
There are two very different questions there. One can agree with the statistics without jumping on the bandwagon. What should we do?
1. Don't deny statistics that are true. You can point out that raw numbers are meaningless due to greatly different populations. You can look at numbers per capita (which as I pointed out still don't look so good) The simple fact is our homicide rates are higher than most developed countries and the weapon of choice is a gun.
2. Don't throw out fake stats. We are having a very similar discussion on another forum I visit and someone threw out the statement that FBI data shows that more people are killed in the USA by hands and feet than guns. (One minute on the internet to find the FBI database shows that claim is completely false.)
3. Check the statements you get from both sides. The pro-gun side throws out an awful lot of poorly researched statements too. (See above)
4. Don't deny that the large number of guns in the USA is PART of the reason we have the level of violence that we do.
The level of violence in the USA is a complicated issue with many reasons. It can't be broken down into simple pro/anti gun arguments.
Personally I have never felt the need to carry a gun to protect myself. If you chose to carry one for protection that is fine by me.
Last edited:
bobmcd
Member
The problem is, it is almost true. More people are killed with blunt force than are killed with long guns. The problem is that some pro-gun people misquote the stat substituting "guns" for "long guns."
- Status