Ah... Chicago?
Just gangs killing on gangs. No loss there...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
There will be 400 murders in my city this year..
- Thread starter ChkitOut
- Start date
Ah... Chicago?
Just gangs killing on gangs. No loss there...
Too many different cultures involved to make that claim. The most emergent variable is that the majority of low gun violence countries simply have fewer guns. I was hoping to move the discussion past "gun control can't work" (because logically of course it can) to a more practical discussion.
You can't make such a conclusion from that site Ricter, it doesn't give any data on gun ownership.
To really get at the issue you need to look at murder rates since this variable is supposed to be influenced both postively and negatively by the ownership of guns according to both sides of the argument. After all, the whole point is to reduce violence and what good would eliminating guns be if people simply switched to knives or poison? I have seen many liberal leaning sites include suicide and accidents as part of their argument, which of course is deceitful.
In America the murder rate for African Americans is 6 times higher per capita than whites, and about half of muders are with a gun (it's interesting but a lot of murder is by arson). We live with same availablity of guns, so how can anybody make such a simple correlation as higher number of guns = higher gun violence? Norway has much higher gun ownership than England but lower homicide rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I was actually going to this myself, but this guy did it for me. Confirms my suspicions- there is actually a slightly negative correlation between availabilty of firearms and murder in developed countries. Check out the scatter plot
http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/02/11/guns-and-murder-internationally/
Our opponents at the Brady Campaign, and other places, are fond of saying that the United States would be the safest country in the world if it were true that more guns meant less crime. They often cherry pick data from favored European Countries, and hope no one bothers to look at the whole picture. Thanks to the folks at Lucky Gunner, I decided to take a look. Iâm using this data from the Small Arms Survey. We will take the most wealthy countries, which Iâll define as those who have a per capita GDP of $14,000 or more. We will toss out any countries that are very undemocratic (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman), or that have instability problems (Lebanon), figuring these countries donât have good incentives to report accurate crime statistics. That gets rid of most of the Middle East. Weâll also get rid of very small countries, like Luxembourg and Malta, figuring they are very small, and because I donât want to compile that much data. Weâll keep the focus on major, reasonably democratic and wealthy countries. Iâll use the murder rate data found here. My raw data can be found here. But Iâll show the chart:
{at the site}
Each dot represents an individual country. See my data if youâre curious about which countries. If you do an r-squared correlation on the data, it does not correlate whatsoever. That means there is absolutely no correlation between the number of guns in civilian hands in any given country and the murder rate. Murder rates and GDP correlate slightly, and gun ownership and GDP per capita donât correlate all that much either. Some might complain that I included African countries, which were above the cutoff I chose. That does not improve the correlation in the slightest if you get rid of them. Some might argue I kept the cutoff too low. If you draw the line above Russia, it improves the correlation slightly, but still no real correlation. If you draw the line at Hungary, you get some correlation. In order to get a strong correlation, you have to pretend that Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Portugal arenât real counties. In order to get strong correlation, you have to cut the number of countries down to the point where the US can give you the correlation youâre looking for. If you just take the top European Countries (GDP/capita > 28,000) again, thereâs no correlation, with only a very slight downward trend.
In short, our opponents can only get correlation by using a very small sample size, so that the United States (which legitimately does have a very high gun ownership, and higher murder rate than most other very wealthy countries) can drive a correlation. If you use more objective criteria, you donât get what they want.
I made the attached, sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/oracetab.cfm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Fraction of total homicides with a gun versus gun ownership tries to see if gun availablity makes that method of killing more prevalent. Logically it should.
Total homicides versus gun ownership should give an idea if guns promote killing that would not normally be there. This is the best way to asses the question. The answer, of course, is that it is the people and not the guns. I really can't understand why people cannot see that bit of obvious reality, other than if your religion prevented it....
I can't make any conclusions other than culture dominates, there may be a very weak correlation positive when you compare fraction of total homicides with a firearm with gun ownership, but if you throw out the USA it looks very weak.
If you compare overall homicide rates, about the only problem you can say with the USA is that blacks should not have guns. Other than that we are just like the europeans. Notice that Englands homicide rate is higher than those gun loving swedes.
Full data set upon request.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/oracetab.cfm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Fraction of total homicides with a gun versus gun ownership tries to see if gun availablity makes that method of killing more prevalent. Logically it should.
Total homicides versus gun ownership should give an idea if guns promote killing that would not normally be there. This is the best way to asses the question. The answer, of course, is that it is the people and not the guns. I really can't understand why people cannot see that bit of obvious reality, other than if your religion prevented it....
I can't make any conclusions other than culture dominates, there may be a very weak correlation positive when you compare fraction of total homicides with a firearm with gun ownership, but if you throw out the USA it looks very weak.
If you compare overall homicide rates, about the only problem you can say with the USA is that blacks should not have guns. Other than that we are just like the europeans. Notice that Englands homicide rate is higher than those gun loving swedes.
Full data set upon request.
Attachments
My intended point was the theoretical one (though of course impractical at this time in the US) that if the populace did not have guns they couldn't shoot each other with guns, so that we could move past "gun control doesn't work".Quote from Mav88:
You can't make such a conclusion from that site Ricter, it doesn't give any data on gun ownership.
To really get at the issue you need to look at murder rates since this variable is supposed to be influenced both postively and negatively by the ownership of guns according to both sides of the argument. After all, the whole point is to reduce violence and what good would eliminating guns be if people simply switched to knives or poison? I have seen many liberal leaning sites include suicide and accidents as part of their argument, which of course is deceitful.
In America the murder rate for African Americans is 6 times higher per capita than whites, and about half of muders are with a gun (it's interesting but a lot of murder is by arson). We live with same availablity of guns, so how can anybody make such a simple correlation as higher number of guns = higher gun violence? Norway has much higher gun ownership than England but lower homicide rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I was actually going to this myself, but this guy did it for me. Confirms my suspicions- there is actually a slightly negative correlation between availabilty of firearms and murder in developed countries. Check out the scatter plot
http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/02/11/guns-and-murder-internationally/
Now, on to the really predictive (as much as any one variable can be) variable. You probably won't like it, either.
Attachments
My intended point was the theoretical one (though of course impractical at this time in the US) that if the populace did not have guns they couldn't shoot each other with guns, so that we could move past "gun control doesn't work".
and if fire didn't exist then nobody could commit arson- so what?
You are not asking the right or an even relevant question. It isn't "how do people want kill", it's "do people want to kill?" availability of guns might only influence only the means but as we see in the case of England versus Sweden, you are safer in the gun culture.
Now, on to the really predictive variable. You probably won't like it, either.
Doesn't bother me. First it's not an outstanding correlation. Second correlation is not causation, using that variable is selective to the liberal agenda. I highly doubt that making 100K vs. $4M a year makes you more likely to commit murder. $10K a year maybe...
Last and most important, you didn't read what I posted. If you remove minorities from the equation, white americas' homicide rate is about the same as the northern European rates. The american crime problem is therefore a minority problem- especially blacks. Income is largely driven by intelligence and education. Blacks underperform in IQ tests, achievment tests, and commit homicide at 6-7 times the white rate. Quite inconvienent for the diversity and economic egalitarians, but they don't want to seem to be bothered with reality.
I added to your chart some ranking according to percent white population, with 1 being high. There is your crime problem.
Attachments
Poverty and environmental stress lower IQ.Quote from Mav88:
and if fire didn't exist then nobody could commit arson- so what?
You are not asking the right or an even relevant question. It isn't "how do people want kill", it's "do people want to kill?" availability of guns might only influence only the means but as we see in the case of England versus Sweden, you are safer in the gun culture.
Doesn't bother me. First it's not an outstanding correlation. Second correlation is not causation, using that variable is selective to the liberal agenda. I highly doubt that making 100K vs. $4M a year makes you more likely to commit murder. $10K a year maybe...
Last and most important, you didn't read what I posted. If you remove minorities from the equation, white americas' homicide rate is about the same as the northern European rates. The american crime problem is therefore a minority problem- especially blacks. Income is largely driven by intelligence and education. Blacks underperform in IQ tests, achievment tests, and commit homicide at 6-7 times the white rate. Quite inconvienent for the diversity and economic egalitarians, but they don't want to seem to be bothered with reality.
I added to your chart some ranking according to percent white population, with 1 being high. There is your crime problem.
Poverty and environmental stress lower IQ.
c'mon ricter I expected better than a quote from the liberal bible (I forget which gospel that is from - Matthews, Marx, Luke, or Noam).
Two fundamental errors: you have the independent variable wrong and you hold too many others constant. But one fact does address this directly: studies have shown that when normalized to income levels and schools, black kids still perform worse than whites.
Do black and latino minorities kill because they are poor? or are they poor because they kill? Logic and evidence points to the latter.
You have more cash than I, why don't you buy this? http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101100155451
Rushton's theory of r-K race differences was examined in relation to the rate of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population and Gross Domestic Product per Person for 74 countries from the 1993-1996 International Crime Statistics published by INTERPOL and the 1999 CIA World Fact Book. Each country was assigned to one of the three macro-races East Asian, European, and African. The results corroborated earlier findings that violent crime is lowest in East Asian countries, intermediate in European countries, and highest in African and in Black Caribbean countries. The median number of violent crimes per 100,000 population were: 7 East Asian countries--34; 45 European countries--42; and 22 African and Black Caribbean countries--149, respectively. The median Gross Domestic Product per Person was highest in East Asian countries ($12,600), intermediate in European countries ($7,400), and lowest in African and Black Caribbean countries ($1,900). Across the three population groups there was an "ecological correlation" of -.96 between crime and wealth (wealthier countries had less crime). Finer-grained analyses, however, found that while wealth was negatively related to crime across European or East Asian countries, it was positively related to crime for the African and Black Caribbean countries (i.e., the wealthier an African or Black Caribbean country, the greater its rate of violent crime). Future research needs to examine genetic factors in addition to cultural factors as well as their interactions.