JN01
Member
True. However, the use of firearms for defense has an effect on WHO is part of that statistic, at least that is what the Crime Victimization Survey seems to indicate.
Homicide Rates Around the World
- Thread starter Steel Horse Rider
- Start date
CapnMac
Member
It's a tool of statistics, to choose a "factor" value that will tend to mitigate against the problems of comparing very large numbers versus very small numbers.
If in a sample of 10,000, 200 things occur in one measurement period, then 300 in the next period, the increase is 50%, even though the "occurrence rate" only changed from 2% to 3%, a one percent increase. Given that 'events' are seldom fractional (it's very difficult to have 1/37th of a car crash, for instance). A method is needed to balance rare events in small samples versus not-rare events in larger samples. It's a mathematical fiction of sorts, but, it's the only way to process integer values (remember, fractional events are not really a thing) without "divide by zero" errors making a mess of the math.
It was not so very long ago, the human population statistical rate was "per 10,000" until recently, when the "per 100,000" has become more common.
The other side of this coin is that the stats are being used to argue from the specific to the general. Which is not a logical ideal. For example, if a city of a million has 167 murders, can that actually predict anything about a city of only a thousand, or even 10,000? Further, there's no good way to determine if population density, rather than simple quantity, matters.
It's a mess, and it's all too easy to grind the axe the way you want.
Remove the word "state" and it's still true; replace "homicide" with "crime" for the same result.
The ignored elephant in the room being that, criminals, on the whole are disinclined to obey laws, or to feel restricted by same, nor deterred by the notion of punishment.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
As an aside, I'd like to point out that some of us have fallen victim to the "antis'" propaganda deluge and are automatically using "anti" terminology. Ruger 10-22s are now "assault weapons" in some jurisdictions.
We really must develop better counter-propaganda methods, and we could start by recognizing when we ourselves are victims of that propaganda.
Back to the Debate Tournament, sorry.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
This should be of interest. This analysis from 2020 indicates of "first world" countries the US is third, fourth, or fifth (Israel may be an outlier), not first, in mass public shootings.
crimeresearch.org
University Shooting in Prague leaves 14 Murdered and Dozens Injured, what is rare about this case is that it is getting substantial news coverage
At least 14 people were killed and dozens more were injured in a mass shooting Thursday afternoon at a university in central Prague, Czech authorities said. The shooter was a student at the school,…
crimeresearch.org
Comparing the Global Rate of Mass Public Shootings to the U.S.’s Rate and Comparing Their Changes Over Time
The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the Un
deliverypdf.ssrn.com
Attachments
JN01
Member
Why does first world status matter?
coondogger
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 552
It’s often attributed to Twain. Wrongly. Benjamin D’Israeli, former prime minister of England said it.
Comparing apples to apples, or at least that's the theory.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,083
While I understand not being first is significant, I also don't see being third in this kind of race as being something to brag about, unless there were only three countries in the study. As I said before, there is a homicide problem here in the U.S., even if we are not #1. But it is a homicide problem and not a gun problem. The problem runs much deeper than guns and their availability.
As we already know, the appeal of gun control legislation in the current climate is the theoretical protection of those who have disarmed themselves, so are not affected by increasingly egregious laws. The inconvenient oversight is assuming the police that we have just de-funded and a bloated, straining prison system will protect us from human greed and rage. Even in the best of times, that concept has been greatly oversold, and more recently it should have become more apparent that the emperor is unclad. The diversionary tactics include not only cooked statistics but a complicit reporting theme, and we really do need to use effective tools of our own to help people understand how they are being duped.
We want to reduce everything to simple whole integers, to letter grades, to IQ numbers. They never really tell the whole story, but become a kind of religion used to manipulate the masses. In the process we lose sight of common sense and what we have learned time and again over the centuries.
We want to reduce everything to simple whole integers, to letter grades, to IQ numbers. They never really tell the whole story, but become a kind of religion used to manipulate the masses. In the process we lose sight of common sense and what we have learned time and again over the centuries.
GravelRider
Member
Why do these discussions always end up pointing out that black Americans are causing most of the crime, and leave it at that? This doesn't mean we don't have a crime problem just because the crime is concentrated in certain geographic locations or in certain races of Americans. Are they not fellow Americans as well?
I don't know if these figures exist, but have we looked at income and education of those convicted of violent crimes? My guess is this would have the strongest correlation.
I don't know if these figures exist, but have we looked at income and education of those convicted of violent crimes? My guess is this would have the strongest correlation.
coondogger
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 552
No doubts abouts it.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Thank you, ilbob (post 62).
Few of us seem to realize that this defensive statistical game is really falling into a trap created by the "anti-gunners."
Every "yeah, but" we generate can be countered with a "yeah, but" from the other side.
Phooey on that nonsense.
I have long been of the strong opinion that the dangers of abrogating 2A far exceed the dangers of strictly observing it.
I have also long taken a Darwinian approach to the question: That those who would work violence on others would be "statistically" weeded out of the population (and "gene pool") if everybody had the ability to return their violence with violence.
Tough words, and some innocents would fall, but I see it as a practical, almost "scientific," long view of the situation.
I have frivolously called this the "Billy The Kid Theory" of gun control....
Billy the Kid killed about seven people before he was 23 years old.
Then he stopped doing that.
Terry, 230RN
Few of us seem to realize that this defensive statistical game is really falling into a trap created by the "anti-gunners."
Every "yeah, but" we generate can be countered with a "yeah, but" from the other side.
Phooey on that nonsense.
I have long been of the strong opinion that the dangers of abrogating 2A far exceed the dangers of strictly observing it.
I have also long taken a Darwinian approach to the question: That those who would work violence on others would be "statistically" weeded out of the population (and "gene pool") if everybody had the ability to return their violence with violence.
Tough words, and some innocents would fall, but I see it as a practical, almost "scientific," long view of the situation.
I have frivolously called this the "Billy The Kid Theory" of gun control....
Billy the Kid killed about seven people before he was 23 years old.
Then he stopped doing that.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
Mr Creosote
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2024
- Messages
- 6
Wouldn't argue with that. I'm a British Police officer/career Detective approaching retirement, by way of background. I can't pretend to have detailed knowledge of every corner of this green and pleasant land, but I have lived a fair few places in England and have travelled all over. My own force area borders a very large city and itself comprises a fairly even mix of large towns and rural and semi-rural areas. There isn't anywhere I personally wouldn't walk about alone, on or off duty. There are certainly areas I wouldn't choose to wander about unless I had a good reason and I wouldn't recommend having a mosey around a Traveller site, though I've visited those alone on occasion. However, you're not going to accidentally wander onto a Traveller site. It remains largely the case that you have to look for trouble rather than trouble looking for you here [top tip, don't drink in a pub with a flat roof, don't ask why, just don't do it]. If you're a tourist visiting the usual tourist areas [central London, Windsor, Cambridge, Stratford upon Avon, what have you] you would have to be very unlucky to be the victim of violent crime.
However, it is also as well to avoid the belief that England is a quaint and olde worlde place where everyone is going to be nice to you. We largely have the same crime problems that you have in the US - yes we have organised crime, street gangs, drug addiction etc - and our violent crime rate is not dissimilar, though direct comparisons are always going to be tricky due to different definitions and methodology. The only striking difference is in actual homicide rates - in other words, your overall chance of being savagely assaulted is much the same but the chance of you actually being killed is considerably lower. Hopefully that is a comfort.
Since this a firearms site, let's touch on that. I don't think I'm some sort of a brainwashed sheeple; of course, if I was brainwashed, how would I know, but moving on. I rather like shooting and if I lived in the US, I suspect I would end up buying a few of the weirder/quirkier firearms to take down the range. But here, in this country, I honestly don't believe I need a firearm for protection. The classic scenario is always going to be armed men forcing their way into a person's home. It happens, but the arms in question are likely to be machetes and other bladed items. And more to the point, the vast majority of home invasions involve people mixed up in the drugs world, namely drug rips on a stash house (if you're stupid enough to deal from your home) or to recover money owed for drugs. Neither personally affects me (except in a work capacity) though it does of course happen that the wrong house gets hit (these people are not rocket scientists). The other, regrettably not infrequent, motive is Asian Gold. We all like gold I guess, but for those unfamiliar, gold has a particular social status for members of certain southern Asian ethnic minorities. Hence gangs do target those houses. Otherwise, you're probably going to be OK answering the doorbell when the sun goes down.
Jim Watson
Member
It is my perception that if you should shoot or shoot at such home invaders, or even brandish your Purdey to repulse them, you would be prosecuted. True? There are jurisdictions in the US that are moving that way, and any defensive use of firearms is investigated by the authorities and critiqued by the Gun Culture.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,083
^^^ I too have this opinion. Punishments and consequences of one's criminal actions have been severely diluted in the last century. This is especially true when it comes to violent crime. Today's science has shown us a coupla things. First, it has shown us that many violent criminals will not or can not be rehabilitated. Thus giving them short sentences and/or early release means they will commit another violent crime against innocents. Anyone who gets our of incarceration after a violent crime and commits another, either needs to stay locked up till he dies, or put down like a mad dog. For folks convicted of 1st degree murder or violent rape, we need to bring back quick capital punishment. Give them a chance to say I'm sorry and good-bye and put them down. Used to be there was sometimes a slight chance the killer was innocent...and we have seen that many a time. But those new advances in science that are now releasing those folks erroneously convicted, are now making no doubt about who committed the crime. Folks convicted on circumstantial or eye witness accounts, given a life sentence, those who confess or are convicted of 1st degree murder under "no doubt" scientific evidence go "bye-bye". Our court system already grants them "reasonable doubt" and with scientific evidence, most of that is eliminated. For most violent criminals, prison life is better than what they have on the street. In prison they have a roof over their heads and food that is better than what they have on the outside world. what fear is there of going back? We need to make it so jails are more than just a comfortable place to put in your time.
Now none of this is going to help with those who commit violence out of impulse. But for those with Impulse control disorders (ICDs), therapy at an early age can help. Those who commit violence out of passion or anger without ANY thought of violence before the crime. still need to be punished, but not as severely. The fear of dying for your crimes has shown to be no deterrent for mass shooters, as their only desire is the 15 minutes of fame and the end of their life anyway. But for those with a history of violence, we need to do something earlier on to prevent than violence from continuing or escalating. We also need to have harsher consequences for those that commit non-violent crimes, because being a petty thief generally is a life-long career.
Sorry if I sound like an arse. But I grew up in the days of "Spare the rod and spoil the child", and I can see the consequences of deserting that philosophy in the world today. I see today's youth glorifying Rappers that sing about "busting a cap on coppers". I see T.V. and movies glorifying violence and enhancing it visually with today's special effects. It's not the direction we need to continue in.
JMTCs
Jim Watson
Member
I agree. It would call for a three level verdict; not guilty, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. Heavy penalties for bearing false witness to get somebody convicted of a major crime, nail the stool pigeons and devious prosecutors not sharing exculpatory evidence.
CapnMac
Member
Well, firstly, welcome to THR, and secondly, thanks for the thought-out response.
Please note there's a New Member Introduction post that is worth a visit, if you have a mind to.
Basura Blanca
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 380
Right away the article conflates "gun violence" with general homicide/violent crime which renders the data instantly suspect.
Even where such data focuses solely on crimes committed with guns, any conclusion should be taken with a giant grain of salt. That is, unless you believe the (anti-gun) notion that simple access or ownership of firearms is relative and causal to "gun violence". This debate is sort of a trap that puts us on the defensive based on a faulty premise.
Even where such data focuses solely on crimes committed with guns, any conclusion should be taken with a giant grain of salt. That is, unless you believe the (anti-gun) notion that simple access or ownership of firearms is relative and causal to "gun violence". This debate is sort of a trap that puts us on the defensive based on a faulty premise.
Mr Creosote
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2024
- Messages
- 6
I'd begin by saying that if I had £150,000 burning a hole in my skyrocket, I might consider buying better locks rather than a Purdey shotgun. However, to answer the question, if you shot someone in your house, you would inevitably be arrested. The old detective maxim is that you don't just let your evidence walk out of the door - you may very well be a good ole boy but I don't know you and I can't tell at a glance what exactly has gone on. Does it follow you would automatically be prosecuted. No. Not if you were considered to have used reasonable force. Basically, you roll the dice.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
^
Automatic arrest also establishes a record, so the next time he kills someone for "home invasion," there's a possible pattern to be considered.
buck460XVR, I have previously recommended a "stacking punishmen" schedule, where penalties for all past offenses are added to the new sentence (or multiply it) , but I don't think it was on this board. And in today's "Oh, you poor man, it was your background that was at fault" environment, I don't think such a correctional concept could be adopted. Well, maybe in the few remaining sensible portions of Texas --but otherwise, no way, Pedro.
Terry, 230RN
Automatic arrest also establishes a record, so the next time he kills someone for "home invasion," there's a possible pattern to be considered.
buck460XVR, I have previously recommended a "stacking punishmen" schedule, where penalties for all past offenses are added to the new sentence (or multiply it) , but I don't think it was on this board. And in today's "Oh, you poor man, it was your background that was at fault" environment, I don't think such a correctional concept could be adopted. Well, maybe in the few remaining sensible portions of Texas --but otherwise, no way, Pedro.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
James Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2019
- Messages
- 166
There is violent and then there is what the media shoves down our throats and eyes that portrays what they want you to belive.
Similar threads
- Locked