Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Fuzzknuckles

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

sivispacem
1 hour ago, Japseye said:

 

They have gun control in Chicago and look how perfectly that is going. 

What about all the other places in the US that have more stringent firearm control than the average but significantly lower levels of firearm violence? You must be able to see how ridiculous cherry picking like this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye

What about what about... these games man..

 

No, what about Chicago. With those tactics of yours, I wouldn't be surprised if you are left-wing. Let's talk about Chicago and not ignore it. Handguns are banned and I quoted 44 murders by firearms last week.

 

Gun control is a fraud.

 

LOL wait you want to talk about cherry picking? 600,000 registered gun owners in Texas last year and you believe guns should be banned or "controlled" because of the minority of school shootings. Once again I'm not seeing this equality bullsh*t. Just some more one sided , student-liberal hyped bullsh*t

 

aaaand my suspicions are confirmed :)

Edited by Japseye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye
56 minutes ago, Daz said:

I know this might sound like some hippie bs but really most of these people really just need someone to talk to. It is always the outcast or the loner. People need someone to offload their problems onto that can agree and understand their issue and to simply tell them "you are right to feel the way you do". This is only exacerbated by shoddy doctors over prescribing pharmaceuticals that either do nothing to help the issue or can cause a complete loss of feeling or emotion which can then lead to horrible events. In most depression cases you can see improvement just by a good diet, exercise and proper sleep accompanied by having someone that you trust that you can talk to about it. It might not work for all cases but you have to think of it in terms of it's function in tribalism. If you lose your tribe it means you are basically dead, humans can't survive without eachother and your body is telling that to you. So effectively you need others to help you console those differences. Obviously there are cases where it is more extreme than just that. But it is an epidemic and one that always ends up with the same hallmarks.

 

Of all places you would think schools should be able to offer this kind of counseling and to be able to spot this behavior early. Because its the only way to stop it, it will keep happening, in the most recent shooting (that got barely any press as it did not fit their anti-gun agenda) the guy used a revolver and a shotgun. They will use whatever it takes regardless of law. If all they can get is a side by side shotgun then that is what it will be.

 

except that's not reality. I was brought up very weak minded and I'm glad I don't have my head up my ass like Californian liberals. People do not open up and some don't want to and never will (like myself) 

 

you know, it would be intelligent if children were properly taught to handle a gun, also good parenting would help in the beginning. We live in a world of weakness surrounded by weak people. Everything is getting easier for mankind. So I see weakness becoming even worse and prevalent. My point is that people will ALWAYS be bullied and guns are here to stay. We've seen Chicago and it hasn't worked, however we've also seen places which works well with gun control. The thing that shocks me the most is the fact that people in Chicago are DYING and the attitude atm is , "uh well , other places are doing fine with gun control so let's push for it more" - for people who care about guns and people dying, they aren't doing alot for Chicago. It's being ignored, just like Sivis did with me :)

 

Also like I said, 600,000 registered gun owners in Texas last year and everybody should be stripped of their guns because of 1 mad shooter. If Tom from Texas owns 8 guns including assault rifles, machine guns and has not harmed ANYBODY in his life with a firearm, how is it justifiable that his guns should be taken off him because of a teenager who grabbed his grandmothers pistol which was not locked up. Some people do not make sense and never will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
2 hours ago, Japseye said:

What about what about... these games man..

 

No, what about Chicago. With those tactics of yours, I wouldn't be surprised if you are left-wing. Let's talk about Chicago and not ignore it. Handguns are banned and I quoted 44 murders by firearms last week.

 

Gun control is a fraud.

 

LOL wait you want to talk about cherry picking? 600,000 registered gun owners in Texas last year and you believe guns should be banned or "controlled" because of the minority of school shootings. Once again I'm not seeing this equality bullsh*t. Just some more one sided , student-liberal hyped bullsh*t

 

aaaand my suspicions are confirmed :)

Oh come on, this is facile drivel and you know it. The fact your knee jerk reaction is to attempt to poison the well by using "leftist" as a slur just goes to demonstrate you lack the intellectual capability to engage with the subject. So why you're even here in D&D I don't really know.

 

But because I enjoy ridiculing fallacious reasoning, I'll humour you. Your single point of evidence for the assertion "gun control does not work" is the example of Chicago. Is Chicago the only place that has instituted higher levels of firearm control than the (American) norm? Of course it isn't. So would you care to explain why you've assumed categorical and unequivocal fact from a sample size of 1, in complete ignorance of any other conflicting examples?

 

I'll give you a clue- it's because you have absolutely no interest in developing a coherently and reasoned understanding of this subject and would instead rather just parrot nonsensical dogma. A common theme amongst many of your recent posts, sprinkled with more than a little inference of homophobia and white nationalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye

Using leftist as a slur? 

 

hahahah Jesus Christ I'll come back and have a "debate" as you guys call it when you become a man and grow some balls :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
51 minutes ago, Japseye said:

Using leftist as a slur? 

Yes, using leftist as a slur. You know, derogatory. Insulting. I mean I'm not actually a leftist, and even if I we're one, I would think attempts to dismiss my views just because of it pretty foolish, but it's not lost on me you've come in here with plenty of edgy opinions and not even the merest whiff of the competence and coherence required to support them.

 

Pretty funny, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

This is the future, I think:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/23/3d-printed-guns-court-settlement-trump-administration-cody-wilson

As this technology becomes cheaper and more efficient, gun control laws will become obsolete, and homemade firearms will be proliferated across the globe, even in nations with strict regulations. 3D printing can allow for great things, I believe we haven't explored one tenth of its potential yet, but as with other technological leaps, it will also open the door to applications which will prove a detriment to society. I truly believe every nation should take notice of this, because it's going to become a huge problem down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Thing is, precision machining has been accessible to the home hobbyist for decades but we don't hear scare stories about home milled guns. I don't see 3D printing as that different. We're still decades away from laser sintering and the like being accessible to hone hobbyists and until that point producing functional firearm receivers that are more of a danger to the person they're pointed at than the user is infinitesimally easier using a CNC mill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Yeah I'm with sivis on this one. For people who want to go on killing sprees and whatnot, we're still far away from guns that can be printed and actually reliable enough to take out a bigger number of people. With the ease of buying guns in America, it's also a lot cheaper to just walk into a walmart and buy it. And if you're looking to create a lot of damage, it's even easier to create your own explosives. 

 

But yeah, it's more important than ever to pass policies and investments that attack the root of the problem. A healthy society is one less prone to use guns for violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
20 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Yeah I'm with sivis on this one. For people who want to go on killing sprees and whatnot, we're still far away from guns that can be printed and actually reliable enough to take out a bigger number of people. With the ease of buying guns in America, it's also a lot cheaper to just walk into a walmart and buy it. And if you're looking to create a lot of damage, it's even easier to create your own explosives. 

 

But yeah, it's more important than ever to pass policies and investments that attack the root of the problem. A healthy society is one less prone to use guns for violence.

We've been  a society prone to both produce weapons and use them for violence since the 50s and 60s when  people were assassinating each other with zip guns made of plumbing parts. I mean we didn't even think to enforce a waiting period until someone killed our president with a mail-order rifle.  Sadder fact is there are attics and basements across America where old mail-ordered rifles lay forgotten, waiting to be sold without background check by some "patriot" at a yard sale. They're so ubiquitous, that it will be a long time before 3d printing a gun will be easier than knocking over some farmer's shed, or finding the right 2A supporters at a flea market or gun show who will look the other way.

 

It's basically like the root of the problem has been left to fester for 60 years while we arm ourselves to the teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday

Another ordinary day in America, another mass shooting (by another lonely white man), another round of thoughts and prayers (but no gun control legislation) until the next shooting....

 

 

Maybe instead of getting our panties in a bunch over Caravans and Muslims, neither of which are an actual threat, we should be cracking down on all these Cracker-Honkey gun nuts right here in our own backyard.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/authorities-multiple-injuries-shooting-california-081908764.html

Edited by Doctor Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

The killer was a military vet, having served in Afghanistan.

 

This is an important bit, since they can't find a motive:

 

Quote

Mental health officials were called to his home this year
Ventura county sheriff Geoff Dean said sheriff’s deputies were called to Long’s home in Newbury Park, five miles west of Thousand Oaks, in April 2018. They found Long “somewhat irate, acting a little irrationally”, Dean said. The deputies called in mental health specialists. The specialists decided Long’s mental state did not require him to be detained for further assessment.

So there you go. Military vet without proper mental health support, who lost it. And:

 

Quote

The gun was legally purchased
Authorities said the .45 caliber Glock handgun used in the shooting was legally purchased. But Dean said Long had used an extended magazine – illegal in California – during the shooting, which would enable the weapon to fire more rounds before needing to be reloaded.

Legally purchased, with an illegal attachment. 

Ban guns, don't ban them, control guns, don't control them. It won't matter as long as mental health isn't kept in check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday

Can we try anything other than nothing?

 

I can't think of any other so-called civilized nation that would stand for this precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

Well I've already identified one person in this thread that doesn't need a firearm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
On 11/9/2018 at 2:28 AM, Tchuck said:

Ban guns, don't ban them, control guns, don't control them. It won't matter as long as mental health isn't kept in check.

It would matter to a pretty large extent. You simply cannot shoot people if you don't have anything to shoot them with. Isn't it insane that in a lot of places in the US you can just go ahead and purchase a firearm like it was a lollipop? These things aren't toys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
4 hours ago, Darth Yokel said:

It would matter to a pretty large extent. You simply cannot shoot people if you don't have anything to shoot them with. Isn't it insane that in a lot of places in the US you can just go ahead and purchase a firearm like it was a lollipop? These things aren't toys.

It won't matter because America already has nearly as many guns as inhabitants. Banning them now won't do anything. Controlling them now will be a start, but won't really get to the root of the problem. As long as mental health in America in general is not taken seriously, sick people will find a way to get their hands on guns and cause problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay

Everytime someone buys a gun in the US they should also be made to buy a covered wagon, a quid of chewing tobacco and some beads to trade with the injuns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grotti Vigilante

In light of California's recent shooting, all I want to know is why pro-gun control advocates don't use the constitutional argument put forward by their opponents against them? The Second Amendment states:

 

"a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

Nobody on either side seems to remember the first bit which, I believe, was modeled after the Swiss militia system in which much of the population still own firearms yet have less gun crime than most of the world. Conscription would probably weed out those not fit to have a firearms, so there's not much else to consider. In principle it's a great idea to have a procedure in place for the citizens in case of tyrannical governments, and one I can get behind with the right factors and systems in place. Switzerland seems to have got things right in that regard, and as well as being a potential deterrent for local tyrants, it also partially helped keep Hitler on the other side of the summits. Quite strange when you consider that NRA advocates point to the Swiss as their poster boy of unregulated gun culture.

 

If the US really followed the Swiss system from the start like intended you can safely assume that things may not be as bad as they are now. I say "may not" because the Swiss also don't have the US standards of healthcare, unemployment rate, low wages, racial tensions and gang culture. Perhaps these ought to be addressed as well otherwise Black and Hispanic hoodlums in Compton will still be killing each other, and edgy school shooters will probably start using other weapons to go on a rampage killing fellow pupils cause of some kind of health issue or something. Despite the UK having tight gun control, London is now in the middle of a knife crime crisis that the Mayor says could take generations to fix. It's not as simple as just banning the weapons, there's other things at hand here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Yes, Switzerland doesn't have ghettos and crime as the US does. Switzerland also doesn't have mass culture and the accompanying mass psychosis that seems to cause these mass killings.

Furthermore, wouldn't conscription put those owning firearms further under the authority of the state? It makes no sense at all to conscript people en masse 'to fight the tyranical state'. You strengthen a potentially tyrannical state by conscripting everyone into it, not fight it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grotti Vigilante
28 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Furthermore, wouldn't conscription put those owning firearms further under the authority of the state? It makes no sense at all to conscript people en masse 'to fight the tyranical state'. You strengthen a potentially tyrannical state by conscripting everyone into it, not fight it.

I'm not quite sure if there's a certain answer to that question. A well-regulated militia sounds like it would be relying on the people to regulate it rather than the state. Militias are after all civilian military. Even if it relied on military acting independently from government to train it, in the case of the US the Commander-in-Chief is head of government and state, so it's never truly independent. I'm no expert on how it would work really since I live in the UK where there is no conscription or militias. I've never even been in the regular military either, so I'm not privy to the information or knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I remember Nikolas Cruz was actually a part of a far right militia. So in the case where the community has no democratic control over these militias they might become terror hazards themselves. In general I have this sense that things that work in Switzerland just don't always work in the rest of the world. They also have functional direct democracy in Switzerland. The Swiss just seem like a superior people haha.

I'd imagine that a right to bear arms would be perfectly fine and functional in an egalitarian wealthy monocultural society like say Iceland. If you give every household in Iceland a gun, people will not start mass shooting one another. Issues arise in situations of large inequality, multiculturalism and ghettos.
 

16 hours ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

so I'm not privy to the information or knowledge.

I have to admit I'm no expert here either.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grotti Vigilante
2 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

I remember Nikolas Cruz was actually a part of a far right militia. So in the case where the community has no democratic control over these militias they might become terror hazards themselves. In general I have this sense that things that work in Switzerland just don't always work in the rest of the world. They also have functional direct democracy in Switzerland. The Suisse just seem like a superior people haha.

Now suddenly the state isn't the only body a totally rational person needs to worry about shooting for their own safety. I would agree with you about the Swiss by the way. It feels like they have some kind of secret to keeping organised and civil. Superior people seems like an appropriate statement. 😛 

 

2 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

I'd imagine that a right to bear arms would be perfectly fine and functional in an egalitarian wealthy monocultural society like say Iceland. If you give every household in Iceland a gun, people will not start mass shooting one another. Issues arise in situations of large inequality, multiculturalism and ghettos.

Indeed. The US is far from egalitarian and monocultural, and I question whether gun control would even work given the fact it won't make the issues you mentioned suddenly go away. 

 

2 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

I have to admit I'm no expert here either.

Then that gives us some equal footing in this debate. 😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hatin Since 87
On 6/13/2018 at 1:27 AM, sivispacem said:

What about all the other places in the US that have more stringent firearm control than the average but significantly lower levels of firearm violence? You must be able to see how ridiculous cherry picking like this is.

This just downright isn’t true. 

 

Have you looked at the studies? In the 90’s (during assault weapon bans) there was 30,000 homicides in the us by firearms. In 2015 there were 9,000 homicides by firearms. The media skews the facts by claiming 30,000 deaths by gun, but 20,000 of those are suicide. 

 

Also, violent crime in areas with the toughest gun control is almost double what it is in areas like Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. 

 

look at texas. Where is the most gun crimes? In the major cities. Same with Louisiana. If you take New Orleans out of the equation, gun crimes are very low. California has extreme gun control, yet crime is a huge problem in California cities. Take Chicago Detroit New Orleans Los Angeles etc out of the statistics and the gun crimes are extremely low. 

 

Not to mention, a country that has almost double the amount of guns as the country with the 2nd most, and we are 116th worldwide for homicide. If there was a correlation between guns and murders, we’d be first in homicides by almost double the next country. Care to guess who is first worldwide for homicide? That’s right, the Honduras. No guns allowed Honduras. Seems if there was any relation between guns and homicides, that wouldn’t be the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
52 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

This just downright isn’t true. 

It absolutely is.

 

You're right that the trend in US gun violence has been firmly downwards over the last two decades, and you're also right that violence rates in inner cities tend to be much higher than in more rural communities, but the assertion that firearm violence rates are typically lower in states with lax laws than those with stringent laws simply doesn't ring true. 

 

At a state level, there is no real correlation between stringency of firearm restriction and firearm homicide rates. California, which you highlight as having a "high" rate, actually has a fairly middling one that's lower than, say, Arizona- which has amongst the least restrictive laws in the US. In fact, outliers aside (at both the high and low ends) there's not a huge variance in rates, regardless of the local laws.

 

Which is exactly my point; by cherry picking specific states, you can create the illusion of a correlation where none actually exists. Actually establishing causality is even harder. The fact that firearm restrictions may be instituted in response to crime rates, rather than being the cause of them, doesn't seem to be considered at all- so you run the risk of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacies.

 

Again, the reliance on cherry picking extends to international comparisons. Instead of baselining the US against nations that are comparable in GDP per capita, or Gini Coefficient, or HDI, or general non-violent crime rates, or individual freedoms, or a myriad of other factors that are far better at drawing general comparisons from, you pick Honduras and reference the US' overall local standing, whilst ignoring far more obvious comparisons with places like Canada, Australia, or pretty much any country in the EU27.

 

It just smacks of trying to shoehorn evidence into a theory rather than offering an objective and coherent assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hatin Since 87
2 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

It absolutely is.

 

You're right that the trend in US gun violence has been firmly downwards over the last two decades, and you're also right that violence rates in inner cities tend to be much higher than in more rural communities, but the assertion that firearm violence rates are typically lower in states with lax laws than those with stringent laws simply doesn't ring true. 

 

At a state level, there is no real correlation between stringency of firearm restriction and firearm homicide rates. California, which you highlight as having a "high" rate, actually has a fairly middling one that's lower than, say, Arizona- which has amongst the least restrictive laws in the US. In fact, outliers aside (at both the high and low ends) there's not a huge variance in rates, regardless of the local laws.

 

Which is exactly my point; by cherry picking specific states, you can create the illusion of a correlation where none actually exists. Actually establishing causality is even harder. The fact that firearm restrictions may be instituted in response to crime rates, rather than being the cause of them, doesn't seem to be considered at all- so you run the risk of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacies.

 

Again, the reliance on cherry picking extends to international comparisons. Instead of baselining the US against nations that are comparable in GDP per capita, or Gini Coefficient, or HDI, or general non-violent crime rates, or individual freedoms, or a myriad of other factors that are far better at drawing general comparisons from, you pick Honduras and reference the US' overall local standing, whilst ignoring far more obvious comparisons with places like Canada, Australia, or pretty much any country in the EU27.

 

It just smacks of trying to shoehorn evidence into a theory rather than offering an objective and coherent assessment.

You’re doing the exact thing you accuse me of. 

 

You used arizona, so here, I’ll play along. How many mass shootings has California had in the past year? Now how many has Arizona had? 

 

Youre trying to correlate countries with  the same GDP, but that skews statistics. As I pointed out, 90% of gun homicides happen in the cities. Now take a country like the United States, which has roughly 100 major cities, and compare that to somewhere like Canada who has 1/4 of that, and 1/20 of the population. Now add in the multiculturalism you find in America. I hate when people refer to how socialism or gun control works in Nordic countries. They are also, by large, a white population with very little diversity. Bad comparison. 

 

Stop trying to compare the USA to other countries, as it isn’t in any way comparable. The Honduras is a fine example, as it is nowhere near the size of the United States, with a lot smaller population, and a couple of big cities, yet, straight numbers wise, has double the homicides. Seems if guns were the underlying problem the USA would be on the top of every crime list.

 

Violent crime... nope

 

Homicides... nope

 

sexual assault... nope 

 

Seems pretty obvious to me. 

 

Ever heard of kenishaw, georgia? Take some time and look that up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
15 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

You’re doing the exact thing you accuse me of. 

To prove the point that it's entirely possible to cherry-pick examples that show the exact inverse of the false correlation you claim exists.

 

But you handily ignore the section looking at overall dispersion, and the fact I state clearly that looking broadly across the entire data set there's no genersl correlation, to instead focus on misguided appeals to hypocrisy.

 

15 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

How many mass shootings has California had in the past year? 

Now you've tried to move the goalposts by redefining the issue from general firearm crime to mass shootings.

 

15 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

Youre trying to correlate countries with  the same GDP, but that skews statistics. As I pointed out, 90% of gun homicides happen in the cities. Now take a country like the United States, which has roughly 100 major cities, and compare that to somewhere like Canada who has 1/4 of that, and 1/20 of the population. 

You don't seem to understand the basic statistics user to record violent crime. I'm not looking at overall numbers, I'm looking at rates per capita. This accounts for the differences in population.

 

What's more, if Canada has a population 1/20th of that of the US, divested across 1/4 of the cities, that would indicate a higher proportion of urban population than in the US. In actuality, the US and Canada have the same approximate split of Urban to Rural population: 81% to 19%. You're plucking nonsense figures out of thin air and it's painfully obvious.

 

15 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

Now add in the multiculturalism you find in America.

As if multiculturalism is a solely US phenomenon. What absolute nonsense. Overall levels of ethnic diversity in a variety of different Western nations are similar to or higher than that of the US.

 

15 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

Stop trying to compare the USA to other countries

So I can't draw comparisons with nations that are demonstrably statistically similar, but you can with ones that aren't? You might want to come back after you've learned to present yourself coherently in a way that isn't frankly embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hatin Since 87
1 minute ago, sivispacem said:

To prove the point that it's entirely possible to cherry-pick examples that show the exsct inverse of the false correlation you claim exists.

 

But you handily ignore the section looking at overall dispersion, and the fact I state clearly that looking broadly across the entire data set there's no genersl correlation, to instead focus on misguided appeals to hypocrisy.

 

Now you've tried to move the goalposts by redefining the issue from general firearm crime to mass shootings.

 

You don't seem to understand the basic statistics user to record violent crime. I'm not looking at overall numbers, I'm looking at rates per capita. This accounts for the differences in population.

 

What's more, if Canada has a population 1/20th of that of the US, divested across 1/4 of the cities, that would indicate a higher proportion of urban population than in the US. In actuality, the US and Canada have the same approximate split of Urban to Rural population: 81% to 19%. You're plucking nonsense figures out of thin air and it's painfully obvious.

 

As if multiculturalism us a solely US phenomenon. What absolute nonsense. Overall levels of ethnic diversity in a variety of different Western nations are similar to or higher than that of the US.

 

So I can't draw comparisons with nations that are demonstrably statistically similar, but you can with ones that aren't?

 

You might want to come back after you've learned to present yourself coherently in a way that isn't frankly embarrassing 

Well, I was trying to have an adult debate but like a typical leftist you resort to insults. 

 

Wanna know what’s embarrassing? Your inability to apply a cognitive thought to the topic. 81% to 19% doesn’t mean anything when 1 country has 5 times the population. 19% of 300 million people is a hell of a lot more than 19% of 60 million. Trying to equate the 2 is a desperate grasp for legitimacy. It isn’t working. 

 

If the mass mass shootings comparison is moving the goal post let’s back it up then. How many gun deaths did California have? How many did Arizona have? 

 

Im not saying multiculturalism is solely a USA phenomenon, I’m saying comparisons with countries that aren’t is blatantly attempting to skew statistics in your favor. 

 

Also, what nations are “statistically similar” to the USA? You’re using GDP as your basis for that, not taking into account, as I’ve already said, the differences in population and major cities. 

 

This is simple really. Take a country with similar GDP, and compare per capita crime rates. Well, again, those statistics are skewed. Again, most crimes happen in major cities. When the USA has over 100 major cities and you compare to a country with 5 major cities, it doesn’t matter if you compare per capita or not. If we had 5 major cities and compared per capita we would have a way lower result than we do with 100 major cities being added into that equation. 

 

Maybe the embarrassment falls on yourself, and in an utter attempt to deflect the shame you choose to insult me instead of continuing to have an adult conversation. I prefer not to resort to name calling and insults, so let’s keep debating the issue and not resorting to child’s play. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
7 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

typical leftist

Lol

8 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

Wanna know what’s embarrassing? Your inability to apply a cognitive thought to the topic. 81% to 19% doesn’t mean anything when 1 country has 5 times the population. 

You really don't get this, do you? Let me try explaining again.

 

I'm not comparing homicide rates directly, I'm comparing homicide rates per defined capita- in this instance, 100,000. It doesn't matter if one nation has 1m citizens and another 300m, using a measure of "X murders per 100,000 citizens" overrides this. 10 murders in a country of 1 million and 3000 murders in a country of 300 million produce the same per capita instance of murder.

 

If you don't understand the concept of "per capita" sufficiently to understand this, then you have no place trying to talk about murder rates, because that's how they're measured. It's absolutely billy-basic stuff.

 

13 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

If the mass mass shootings comparison is moving the goal post let’s back it up then. How many gun deaths did California have? How many did Arizona have? 

3.2 per 100,000 and 3.4 per 100,00 respectively. So you are statistically more likely to be the victim of a firearm murder in Arizona.

 

The total figures are effectively irrelevant. This is why the measure of "per 100,000" is used.

 

15 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

Im not saying multiculturalism is solely a USA phenomenon, I’m saying comparisons with countries that aren’t is blatantly attempting to skew statistics in your favor. 

Name a country I've mention that isn't "multicultural".

 

16 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

Also, what nations are “statistically similar” to the USA? 

Canada is the most obvious comparison. It's similar in terms of GDP per capita, similar HDI albeit higher Gini. It's multicultural- in fact probsbly closest to the "melting pot" US of just about anywhere. We've already established it has the same Urban/Rural population dispersion. It shares substantially the same historic heritage and even mirrors modern culture.

 

It's about as perfect a comparison partner as you could possibly hope for.

 

20 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

If we had 5 major cities and compared per capita we would have a way lower result than we do with 100 major cities being added into that equation. 

This is absolute incoherent nonsense. The total number of cities is irrelevant; why do you think that 100 would have a higher murder rate than 5 if the dispersal of population between urban and rural was overall the same? 

 

If the same percentage of people live in cities, it doesn't matter how many cities there are. This is the most basic of basic principles of statistical comparison 

 

24 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

Maybe the embarrassment falls on yourself

Perhaps I consider providing primary school level explanations of the basic concepts of crime recording and statistical analysis to someone who isn't capable of understanding simple English beneath me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hatin Since 87

Dude. Omg. So frustrating. 

 

Per capita is skewed if the countries you are comparing has 100 major cities and the other has 5 major cities. Why is this so hard? 

 

100 major cities means more crime than 5 major cities. 

 

So taking 100,000 people to use as a baseline for per capita doesn’t mean sh*t. 

 

100,000 people in a country with 100 major cities would show more crime than using 100,000 people from a country with 5 cities. 

 

Ugh. 

Also you used Canada. What is Canada’s demographics? Care to research the %s of ethnic groups in Canada? 

 

And you can say the “percentage of urban population” makes the 5 cities vs 100 cities irrelevant. But it doesn’t, in fact as I’ve already said, 19% of 300 million is a hell of a lot more than 60 million. 

 

So now you’re taking percentages, which is way different, and applying per capita, ruling out the fact a country with 100 cities will always have more crime than a similar country with 5. 

 

Keep grasping. 

 

But im done. No sense debating with a lefty that can’t understand basic math, pounds his chest like he’s something great, and insults every chance he gets. 

 

Have a good one:)

 

PS- Come and Take it :)

Edited by Hatin Since 87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
27 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

Per capita is skewed if the countries you are comparing has 100 major cities and the other has 5 major cities. Why is this so hard? 

It's "so hard" because you're wrong. The number of cities is irrelevant; the distribution of population between cities and rural areas is what matters.

 

A country with 5 cities, 5 million people and 50% of them living in cities had exactly the same distribution of city dwellers as a country of 100 cities, 200 million people and 50% distribution.

 

If you think the latter would have a higher normalised crime rate per 100,000 due to there being more cities, you would be wrong. And the fact you don't seem to understand this is frankly flabbergasting.

 

27 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

So taking 100,000 people to use as a baseline for per capita doesn’t mean sh*t. 

It's the system the US itself uses for conducting comparative analysis. Your arguing with the statistical recording methodology which underpins every single claim you've made so far.

 

27 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

And you can say the “percentage of urban population” makes the 5 cities vs 100 cities irrelevant. But it doesn’t, in fact as I’ve already said, 19% of 300 million is a hell of a lot more than 60 million. 

Are you genuinely some kind of simpleton? It doesn't matter than 19% of 300 million is more than 19% of 60 million, because I'm not comparing overall crime rates, I'm comparing normalised ones per 100,000. 5000 murders a yearin the former and 1000 a year in the latter means parity per 100,000.

 

27 minutes ago, Hatin Since 87 said:

Also you used Canada. What is Canada’s demographics? Care to research the %s of ethnic groups in Canada? 

Ethnicity isn't fully recorded on US census (which look at race instead). From the perspective of racial demographics, there's not actually that much divergence. The US is around 72% white (for the purpose of racial reporting, Hispanics are split between "white" and "non-white" based on self identification). Canada is also 72% white. The breakdown between racial minority groups differs (US has much higher proportions of black minorities, Canada much higher proportions of Asians) but in terms of actual distribution between minority and non-minority both are surprisingly similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.