New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Danoff]

This is what the entire argument boils down to. Security theater:

What happened in NZ could have been prevented if he had no acces to said "tool" (weapon). Speculating he might have used a bom or car is for another topic.

You're now saying that you're intentionally not thinking this through, segmenting a logical progression of thought into two separable questions.

First, banning these guns does not prevent access. Second, banning these guns is not necessary to restrict easy access. Third, even if you could prevent access (which you can't), think for a moment about what he's going to do. Give up and become peaceful? He made bombs. He's not going to just not kill people if he doesn't have easy access to a semi-auto rifle. He's either going to obtain one with more effort, obtain a different (easy access) gun with less effort, use the bombs he made, use a car, use a plane, use some other instrument of destruction. And the results may actually be worse.

In the US we recently had a case where someone was shooting up a church in Texas with a semi-auto rifle, and someone else brought a semi-auto rifle to the church and killed him. Is it better if only the criminal has the semi-auto rifle? How about if neither have them and the church is just blown up.

Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons that these killers might not use the bombs they make (including the guy in NZ, and James Holmes in Aurora CO), because they actually have their own twisted set of morality? Timothy McVeigh actually laid out that he regretted that there were kids in the Oklahoma city building he destroyed. He didn't want to kill those kids, but he accepted them as collateral damage to achieve his goals. Well, what if he had a stronger sense of desire not to kill kids, and left his bombs in his car and went in with a semi-auto so that he could look each person he was killing in the eye and know that he wasn't violating his personal code of conduct? Then he'd look like the NZ shooter.

How is it preferable to push people to choose the weapon that results in unintended casualties while disarming the public who can be called upon to stop them faster than the police? In relatively free societies people find ways to murder each other, there are too many to stop.

You seem to think that this legislation has more control than it does. That we can legislate away what happened in NZ. I get the emotional appeal of that, the false calming sense of security that it brings. The idea that we fixed the problem, that it's not going to happen again, and that safety is restored. It's an illusion. The harsh reality is that you can't keep guns out of the hands of motivated people, but even if you could, you may only be making the problem worse. These people are determined, often willing to end their lives. You need to think about the whole problem instead of lying to yourself about how easy it is to fix.

 

[PocketZeven]

Actually you inserted yourself into this conversation by responding to my post (shockingly without even reading it), so you don't get to say what the point was. My point, to which you were responding, was that guns, like cars, are tools that people can keep and use without harming the rights of others.

That followed on from earlier posts about the death rates associated with people misusing these items being 520% higher with cars than guns, and even if normalised to the number of cars and guns (like that matters to people who are killed by them) it's 400% higher.

You responded that guns are made to kill (which isn't true) and cars are made as transport (which isn't true) - again, like either of those things matter to people who are killed by them. I pointed out that this was nonsense and asked if you were fine with the death toll of cars on that basis. You, as usual, tried your hardest to avoid answering that (and any question), but subsequently admitted that it's okay to kill 1.2 million people every year through the misuse of cars because cars aren't meant to kill people and you understand the usefulness of cars.

You won't answer why dying through misuse of cars is better for the person who dies than dying through misuse of guns.

To project flames, possibly for display purposes, in the 10th Century. The first recorded use as a weapon comes a couple of hundred years later, in th 12th Century.

That's quite difficult to say with nearly a billion guns on the planet. The overwhelming majority are unused. Of those that are, the overwhelming majority are used to fire a projectile at an inanimate object for sport, fun or practice.

About 45m of the USA's 300m privately held firearms (15% of households include one or more hunters; only 32% of households even have guns) are owned by hunters, so assuming each uses all of them and doesn't target shoot or keep any on display, that's 45m guns used to kill things (15%). There's a maximum of 40,000 guns - including those held by police and military - used to take a human life each year in the USA, if each kills one person, but that also includes suicides (which are roughly 30% of the total in any given year). Still, that's 0.013% at the higher figure.

The USA does seem to have a violence and mental health problem that a lot of people (like you) want to pretend is a gun problem rather than address, and hunting is culturally more normal, so it's likely that it will be disproportionately high in terms of guns used to kill living things (and both used and misused to kill humans), but the primary use for 85% of them is to be inert or shoot at inanimate targets, and the primary "active" use would be to shoot at inanimate targets.

If you think the primary purpose of guns is to kill, you'll now need to say that 85% of all guns are misused because they are not used to kill, and people keeping them for display are misusing them, and people shooting at targets are misusing them, and people carrying them for self-defence are misusing them.

Nevertheless you won't, and you won't accept any of the above, and in about three posts' time you'll be back to "guns are designed to kill" because you think it's true.


It still fascinates me that Ardern wants to ban guns with too many bullets. It's literally drawing a line as to how many deaths it's okay to cause with a gun. Although given that some pistols have a higher capacity as standard than the demonised AR-15, it's even worse than that - it's drawing a line as to what type of gun it's okay to be killed by.

It's the same kind of line drawn by people who think 1.2m deaths caused by misuse of cars each year is okay, but 250k deaths caused by misuse (and appropriate use - a fair chunk of those deaths are lawful killings and self-defence) of firearms each year is not. If you're killed by this tool, by someone incompetent, your death is acceptable, but if you're killed by that tool, by someone on purpose, your death is unacceptable.

The mental contortions required for that to fit inside one head must make it hard to even stand up straight.

I dont think dying from cars is better then guns. I never implied or suggested that. My whole response was built upon me stating that you can not compare incidental deaths with intentional deaths. Car related deaths are a discussion for another thread. My country and the UK (2.9 vs 10.9 in US) actually have a very low deathrate, but that is perhaps because of better roads, policing and better education. However that difference (360%) Dwarves the difference between uk vs USA concerning gunrelated deaths (0.23 (2011) vs 12.9 (2017) with 5500%. Isnt the UK one of the countries with the most strict gunlaws in the world? If you credit both differences to mental health shouldnt gunrelated deaths also differ with approximately 360% .

Lets then take a look between the differences in mental health. And in data the UK has about 17% of the population have mental or anxiety health disorders vs USA with approx 22%. That is only a difference of 5% Shouldnt that difference also be 360% or with guns 5500%?

Incorrect. The first weapons firing projectiles were invented in China, with the purpose of a weapon of war. Coincidently the chinese also invented gunpowder.


I wont convince you or @Danoff, but at least keep NZ on your radar to see if the stricter gunlaws will have an effect in the future.

 

[Joey D]

Lets then take a look between the differences in mental health. And in data the UK has about 17% of the population have mental or anxiety health disorders vs USA with approx 22%. That is only a difference of 5% Shouldnt that difference also be 360% or with guns 5500%?

To be fair, there's a huge population difference between the UK and the US. 17% of the UK's population is 11,200,000 people whereas 22% of the US's population is 71,940,000 people. The US's number is nearly seven times that of the UK's.

Also, mental health cases are vastly underreported.

 

[PocketZeven]

To be fair, there's a huge population difference between the UK and the US. 17% of the UK's population is 11,200,000 people whereas 22% of the US's population is 71,940,000 people. The US's number is nearly seven times that of the UK's.

Also, mental health cases are vastly underreported.

Ofcourse! But I suspect that difference is far from 360% (difference in car related deaths uk vs usa per capita) or 5500% (difference in gunrelated deaths uk vs usa) or 400% (difference in intentional deaths per capita)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

[Joey D]

Ofcourse! But I suspect that difference is far from 360-5500%

Well 360% of 11,200,000 is 40,320,000. To go from the UK's number to the US's number, it's nearly a 700% increase. So, it's not where close to 5500%, but it is more than 360%.

 

[Danoff]

Isnt the UK one of the countries with the most strict gunlaws in the world? If you credit both differences to mental health shouldnt gunrelated deaths also differ with approximately 360% .

You need actual evidence supporting the fact that gun laws are driving the difference.

 

[PocketZeven]

Well 360% of 11,200,000 is 40,320,000. To go from the UK's number to the US's number, it's nearly a 700% increase. So, it's not where close to 5500%, but it is more than 360%.

Using absolutes isnt accurate measuring. Either use per capita or % of the total.

 

[Famine]

I dont think dying from cars is better then guns. I never implied or suggested that.

Then you won't have a problem calling for better regulation of who can own and operate cars based on the 520% higher death toll that misuse of these tools causes.

Which of course you won't do. You accept that dying through incompetent car drivers is better than dying through incompetent (and competent, and lawful, and self-inflicted, because you won't separate out those statistics) gun users, because you think the car has a valid use and you don't think the gun has a valid use, because you think cars are made for transport and guns are made to kill. You absolutely will not accept that these concepts that you've built your opinion on are wrong, which is why you've subsequently ignored every part of my post that answered your direct question (radical concept) with an answer you don't want to hear.

Incorrect. The first weapons firing projectiles were invented in China, with the purpose of a weapon of war. Coincidently the chinese also invented gunpowder.

Amazing how you don't realise the last sentence contradicts the first.

The first gun was the fire lance which, as the name suggests, projected flame, recorded in the 10th Century (in China). The first use of it as a weapon to fire projectiles at living things was recorded in the 12th Century (also in China).

My country and the UK (2.9 vs 10.9 in US) actually have a very low deathrate, but that is perhaps because of better roads, policing and better education.

The death rate in the Netherlands is 8.6/1,000, the death rate in the UK is 9.34/1,000 and the death rate in the USA is 8.15/1,000. No idea what you're talking about. Do you mean homicide rates? If so, are you being honest and remembering that different countries record what a "homicide" is differently, and making sure you've separated out lawful deaths and suicides from those?

However that difference (360%) Dwarves the difference between uk vs USA concerning gunrelated deaths (0.23 (2011) vs 12.9 (2017) with 5500%.

Again, only deaths with guns matter to you. Are they worse somehow than other deaths?

Lets then take a look between the differences in mental health. And in data the UK has about 17% of the population have mental or anxiety health disorders vs USA with approx 22%. That is only a difference of 5% Shouldnt that difference also be 360% or with guns 5500%?

This question makes no sense. Are you asking if the USA should have a 5500% higher rate of "mental or anxiety health disorders" (whatever the hell that means) than the UK because it has guns?

Using absolutes isnt accurate measuring. Either use per capita or % of the total.

Who cares who dies, right, so long as there's enough living people left to outweigh them? Utilitarianism at its finest.

Fun fact - there were 1.3 million recorded violent crimes in the USA in the last full year I can find figures for (2017). There were 1.3 million recorded violent crimes in the UK in the last full year I can find figures for (2017). Per capita (since you asked) that means 500% more violent crime in the UK.

Oh wait, only 6,694 of them used guns. Guess we can ignore it because only the ones with guns count.

 

[PocketZeven]

Then you won't have a problem calling for better regulation of who can own and operate cars based on the 520% higher death toll that misuse of these tools causes.

Which of course you won't do. You accept that dying through incompetent car drivers is better than dying through incompetent (and competent, and lawful, and self-inflicted, because you won't separate out those statistics) gun users, because you think the car has a valid use and you don't think the gun has a valid use, because you think cars are made for transport and guns are made to kill. You absolutely will not accept that these concepts that you've built your opinion on are wrong, which is why you've subsequently ignored every part of my post that answered your direct question (radical concept) with an answer you don't want to hear.
Amazing how you don't realise the last sentence contradicts the first.

Why cant you read more accurate. I told you that the discussion about car realted deaths is something for another thread. I fully agree that road safety is a problem. I am making the difference between deaths by intent and accidental deaths. Why dont you acknowledge that? My opinion is exactly what it was. If a person has intent to kill it is better to make it harder to obtain a weapon. And I would agree it would be better to take away his license and car as well. But stop comparing cars with guns. That doesnt make sense. Throw in alcohol and drugs while you are at it.

The death rate in the Netherlands is 8.6/1,000, the death rate in the UK is 9.34/1,000 and the death rate in the USA is 8.15/1,000. No idea what you're talking about. Do you mean homicide rates? If so, are you being honest and remembering that different countries record what a "homicide" is differently, and making sure you've separated out lawful deaths and suicides from those?

Again, only deaths with guns matter to you. Are they worse somehow than other deaths?

This question makes no sense. Are you asking if the USA should have a 5500% higher rate of "mental or anxiety health disorders" (whatever the hell that means) than the UK because it has guns?

Who cares who dies, right, so long as there's enough living people left to outweigh them?

Utilitarianism at its finest.

See my post I am focusing on intentional deaths, car related deaths and gunrelated deaths. How do you interpet that like other deaths dont matter? Again I never suggested or claimed that at all. You just cherrypicked quotes from my post as if I never mentioned intentional deaths and car related deaths.

 

[Famine]

Why cant you read more accurate.

I told you that the discussion about car realted deaths is something for another thread.

And I told you that was what I was discussing when you responded to my post. Don't want to discuss it? Don't respond to my posts discussing it.

I am making the difference between deaths by intent and accidental deaths. Why dont you acknowledge that?

I have, and I have repeatedly asked you why it's better to die by accident than on purpose. You won't answer.

See my post I am focusing on intentional deaths, car related deaths and gunrelated deaths.

Where, in this mess, is that distinction?

I dont think dying from cars is better then guns. I never implied or suggested that. My whole response was built upon me stating that you can not compare incidental deaths with intentional deaths. Car related deaths are a discussion for another thread. My country and the UK (2.9 vs 10.9 in US) actually have a very low deathrate, but that is perhaps because of better roads, policing and better education. However that difference (360%) Dwarves the difference between uk vs USA concerning gunrelated deaths (0.23 (2011) vs 12.9 (2017) with 5500%. Isnt the UK one of the countries with the most strict gunlaws in the world? If you credit both differences to mental health shouldnt gunrelated deaths also differ with approximately 360% .

And why does it matter? You haven't answered why being killed on purpose by a gun is worse than being killed on purpose or by accident than anything else.

How do you interpet that like other deaths dont matter? Again I never suggested or claimed that at all.

Every time the concept of dying from some other factor than a gun is brought up, you handwave it away. Every time I ask why you are so determined to ignore deaths other than guns, and you handwave it away. You're obsessed with guns. You can't see anything beyond guns. Nothing but people being killed by guns matters to you.

Perhaps if you were even remotely willing to consider, for the merest fraction of a second, that guns are not the most dangerous tools out there, you'd be able to place gun deaths in some sort of context. It seems unlikely, because you seem to place a far higher value on a death caused by a firearm than a death caused by any other factor.

 

[Danoff]

And why does it matter? You haven't answered why being killed on purpose by a gun is worse than being killed on purpose or by accident than anything else.

I've been puzzling over why you keep pushing this point, since it's clearly evident that there are important distinctions between murder and accidental death. I think I've figured it out though, you're playing for the next level, which is a recognition of something beyond utilitarianism. I kinda doubt that the conversation will proceed to that point, but I applaud you for lining it up.

 

[Famine]

I've been puzzling over why you keep pushing this point, since it's clearly evident that there are important distinctions between murder and accidental death. I think I've figured it out though, you're playing for the next level, which is a recognition of something beyond utilitarianism. I kinda doubt that the conversation will proceed to that point, but I applaud you for lining it up.

I do have an ulterior motive though. When I'm finding it hard to put words together for the site's news pages, I find it eases the block if I write about something else. I agree it'll be unfulfilled, but it's just nice to let words flow on something

 

[PocketZeven]

I do have an ulterior motive though. When I'm finding it hard to put words together for the site's news pages, I find it eases the block if I write about something else. I agree it'll be unfulfilled, but it's just nice to let words flow on something

I adressed it directly multiple times and explained it isnt relevant to the thread (and is a topic for another thread). The deaths in NZ were not accidental.

But I will humor you and give you my opinion about if accidental deaths are better/worse then intentional. They arent. Deaths are tragic no matter the intent. Both have other ways to reduce the amount. Car related deaths are mostly due to roaddesign, training etc. Guns are used purposely used to kill (bar accidental ones)

If you however think that a gun is a tool similar to a car then I wont argue this topic anymore. I cannot continue on the basis of that logic.

 

[Famine]

I adressed it directly multiple times and explained it isnt relevant to the thread (and is a topic for another thread).

It is, and I was discussing it when you responded to my post.

But I will humor you and give you my opinion about if accidental deaths are better/worse then intentional. They arent. Deaths are tragic no matter the intent. Both have other ways to reduce the amount. Car related deaths are mostly due to roaddesign, training etc. Guns are used purposely used to kill (bar accidental ones)

Right. Assuming you don't backtrack on that one later, we can now acknowledge - at last - that people who use cars incompetently (mostly legally, sometimes illegally, and in very rare cases, deliberately) kill over 500% the number that people who use guns (incompetently, competently, illegally, legally and suicidally) do annually, worldwide.

We can then surely also acknowledge that if your goal is to reduce the number of people who are killed each year, addressing the ownership and licensing of private vehicles will have a far greater effect than a kneejerk response to a single incident and making certain types of firearms harder to purchase for the law-abiding.

We can also surely acknowledge that being killed by an 18-round pistol is no better than being killed by a 20-round "assault rifle", making the concept that one should be banned and the other should not quite irrational.

Can we also acknowledge that someone who will build illegal pipe bombs may not be concerned about how he kills people if he wants to kill people? Could we perhaps be getting close to acknowledging that someone who wants to kill other people may have something fundamentally wrong with him, and it's wiser both to not let innocent, law-abiding citizens be helpless in the face of that threat and to address that threat before it comes to that point?

I'm hopeful, but not expectant.

If you however think that a gun is a tool similar to a car then I wont argue this topic anymore. I cannot continue on the basis of that logic.

If logic is a problem for you, that may be prudent.

 

[PocketZeven]

It is, and I was discussing it when you responded to my post.

Right. Assuming you don't backtrack on that one later, we can now acknowledge - at last - that people who use cars incompetently (mostly legally, sometimes illegally, and in very rare cases, deliberately) kill over 500% the number that people who use guns (incompetently, competently, illegally, legally and suicidally) do annually, worldwide.

We can then surely also acknowledge that if your goal is to reduce the number of people who are killed each year, addressing the ownership and licensing of private vehicles will have a far greater effect than a kneejerk response to a single incident and making certain types of firearms harder to purchase for the law-abiding.

We can also surely acknowledge that being killed by an 18-round pistol is no better than being killed by a 20-round "assault rifle", making the concept that one should be banned and the other should not quite irrational.

Can we also acknowledge that someone who will build illegal pipe bombs may not be concerned about how he kills people if he wants to kill people? Could we perhaps be getting close to acknowledging that someone who wants to kill other people may have something fundamentally wrong with him, and it's wiser both to not let innocent, law-abiding citizens be helpless in the face of that threat and to address that threat before it comes to that point?

I'm hopeful, but not expectant.

If logic is a problem for you, that may be prudent.

People dying is a problem. However the specific problem relevant to this thread is people being killed through a terrorist attack. I am not claiming gunlaws is the end all solution. However taking away (or making harder) acces to weapons and also in combination with ways to early detect and track people with mental health or extremist views.

Car related deaths are not related to extremist views and/or mental health (in majority of cases). Thats why I chose to not compare both deathrates with eachother. They need different solutions and do not originate from hate and terrorism. But to adress it again. What is your explanation to the large difference between the USA vs UK concerning the disparity between gun deaths and car related deaths? You are absolutely correct concerning countries like mine and yours, however in the usa there are more deaths by gun then car. How do you explain that difference with the global 500% you put out. What role do gunlaws in the USA and UK have in these large differences.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18135976/gun-deaths-us-2017-suicide

 

[Famine]

Car related deaths are not related to extremist views and/or mental health (in majority of cases).

No, they're down to people not using tools properly. Like gun-related deaths are.

They need different solutions and do not originate from hate and terrorism.

Or the same solution: proper training, learning respect for the tool, and better licensing.

What is your explanation to the large difference between the USA vs UK concerning the disparity between gun deaths and car related deaths?

People kill other people by accident, by not learning how to use the tools properly. People kill other people on purpose by not having any respect for the tool or for other people's rights, and use the tool they have easiest access to, whatever that tool may be.

Having access to guns increases the number of deaths where a gun is involved. It doesn't have any correlation with the number of deaths:

Actually the numbers are kind of all over the place. The USA has loads of guns (90 per 100 population), but a relatively low homicide rate (around 7 per 100,000 population). Honduras has few guns (8/100) but a relatively high homicide rate (60/100,000). Switzerland and France have high gun ownership rates (45 and 30) and very low homicide rates (<1 apiece) while New Zealand has twice as many homicides with half as many guns (~22 and 2).

There's no real correlation between gun ownership and homicides - although it's very tough to say because there's no real way to properly quantify either, as countries don't agree on what's a homicide (murder on its own, or any instance of a human dying outside of natural causes?) and registered guns aren't the same as guns that people own (also do we prefer number of guns per people, or number of people with guns?).

There seems to be a closer correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, but then that's to be expected - some 30% of the USA's gun deaths are suicide by firearm. But if we focus on that we're saying we literally don't care that people are murdered if they're not murdered by guns, which is a horrifying position to hold.

... and it may have a negative effect on the number of violent crimes:

Fun fact - there were 1.3 million recorded violent crimes in the USA in the last full year I can find figures for (2017). There were 1.3 million recorded violent crimes in the UK in the last full year I can find figures for (2017).[/B] Per capita (since you asked) that means 500% more violent crime in the UK.

Oh wait, only 6,694 of them used guns. Guess we can ignore it because only the ones with guns count.

Focussing on what tool people use for violent crimes (including murders and negligent manslaughter) and suicide somewhat misses the point.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, they're down to people not using tools properly. Like gun-related deaths are.

Or the same solution: proper training, learning respect for the tool, and better licensing.

People kill other people by accident, by not learning how to use the tools properly. People kill other people on purpose by not having any respect for the tool or for other people's rights, and use the tool they have easiest access to, whatever that tool may be.

Having access to guns increases the number of deaths where a gun is involved. It doesn't have any correlation with the number of deaths:

... and it may have a negative effect on the number of violent crimes:

Focussing on what tool people use for violent crimes (including murders and negligent manslaughter) and suicide somewhat misses the point.

Incorrect. You are trying to use gunownership as a factor. In earlier research I have admitted in this forum that the corellation is disproven by copuntries like switzerland. Gunlaws however are very strict in Switzerland and people receive a lot of training. The Corellation I am stating is gunlaws and ease of obtaining them. As the comparison between the UK and USA already prove is that stricter gunlaws and overal availability equals less "misuse of gun as a tool". It is strange you dont see that correlation? What is your own explanation for that difference?

500 % more violent crime then where?

 

[Famine]

Incorrect.

The whole post eh? Also, nope.

You are trying to use gunownership as a factor. In earlier research I have admitted in this forum that the corellation is disproven by copuntries like switzerland. Gunlaws however are very strict in Switzerland and people receive a lot of training. The Corellation I am stating is gunlaws and ease of obtaining them. As the comparison between the UK and USA already prove is that stricter gunlaws and overal availability equals less "misuse of gun as a tool". It is strange you dont see that correlation?

Having access to guns increases the number of deaths where a gun is involved. It doesn't have any correlation with the number of deaths.

I mean... you're not even trying to pretend you're reading my posts at this point.

500 % more violent crime then where?

It's literally written right there. As it was the first time, in a post made in response to you, which you responded to and also... guess what... ignored completely.

 

[PocketZeven]

The whole post eh? Also, nope.


I mean... you're not even trying to pretend you're reading my posts at this point.

It's literally written right there. As it was the first time, in a post made in response to you, which you responded to and also... guess what... ignored completely.

Nope

You cherrypick (overall) deaths and violent crime deaths stats. Please examine the deaths by violent crimes between the UK. USA and the netherlands. That is the premise I have been talking about all the time. We can discuss the relevance of gunlaws, but the violent crime rate you bring up regurarely varies largly between europe and the USA.

 

[Famine]

Nope

Ah, we've regressed yet further, from not reading to not responding.

Perhaps you should abide by your earlier statement to cease commenting at all due to inability to follow logic.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ah, we've regressed yet further, from not reading to not responding.

Perhaps you should abide by your earlier statement to cease commenting at all due to inability to follow logic.

No I accidently posted before finishing writing. See above. Also dont be condescending. That doesnt suit this forum in my opinion.

 

[Famine]

Also dont be condescending. That doesnt suit this forum in my opinion.

You're perceiving it as condescending because it suits you to do so. You have, yet again, participated in a thread where you all but refuse to answer questions until well past the fourth or fifth time of asking, and ignore giant chunks of posts that are simply inconvenient for you to do so.

You literally just disagreed with my post above that said the exact same thing that you did... That's pretty symptomatic of someone who is just plain not reading, and on purpose.

As for ceasing to participate because you can't follow logic... that was your own comment. Although you framed it as if other people's logic (which isn't a thing; logic isn't subjective) was the problem - which is pretty patronising.

You cherrypick (overall) deaths and violent crime deaths stats.

Not at all. I'm pointing out to you (yet again) only value gun deaths and refuse to look at the bigger picture of deaths caused by other people and violence. Guns play a vanishingly small part in that.

Please examine the deaths by violent crimes between the UK. USA and the netherlands. That is the premise I have been talking about all the time.

Odd then that you've not once posted a single statistic about violent crime deaths from any method except guns...

 

[PocketZeven]

You're perceiving it as condescending because it suits you to do so. You have, yet again, participated in a thread where you all but refuse to answer questions until well past the fourth or fifth time of asking, and ignore giant chunks of posts that are simply inconvenient for you to do so.

You literally just disagreed with my post above that said the exact same thing that you did... That's pretty symptomatic of someone who is just plain not reading, and on purpose.

As for ceasing to participate because you can't follow logic... that was your own comment. Although you framed it as if other people's logic (which isn't a thing; logic isn't subjective) was the problem - which is pretty patronising.

Not at all. I'm pointing out to you (yet again) only value gun deaths and refuse to look at the bigger picture of deaths caused by other people and violence. Guns play a vanishingly small part in that.

Odd then that you've not once posted a single statistic about violent crime deaths from any method except guns...

If you think so, I apologise. My intention is to share my opinion and also debate opinions that differ from mine. I already explained why certain question were not adressed, because these were not relevant to the thread. I did try to answer them in later posts and if you really want I will address them now. Which questions do you think are still left unanswered?

I actually tried multiple times refer to intentional deaths and differentiate from overall deaths. But for accuracy I also looked at homicide (capita):

USA 5.35
UK 1.20
Netherlands 0.55
NZ 0.99

I will drop the discussion of the validity of gun control as a measure to reduce gun related deaths and intentional (&homicide) deaths and I will continue the debate over what is the explanation for the differences between the discussed countries in mortality in regards to violend crime. You adressed earlier that the mortality rate doesnt vary much, Which is strange when you examine other date concerning car related/homicides/gunrelated deaths:

USA 8.15
UK 9.34
NL 8.57
NZ 7.30

Lets also take a look at suicide rates:

USA 13.7
UK 7.6
NL 9.6
NZ 11.6

And another look at car/traffic related deaths:

USA 10.9
UK 2.9
NL 3.4
NZ 8.5

And another look at Gunrelated death:

USA 12.21
UK 0.23
NL 0.58
NZ 1.07

As a sidenote measuring years may vary.

Interesting is I previously thought the overal mortality rate perhaps could be adressed to a higher median age in UK and NL. But the differences are not big enough to warrant that:

USA 38.1 years
UK 40.5 years
NL 42.6 years
NZ 37.9 years

How come overal mortality and suicide are somewhat similair, but homicide, car/gun related deaths are much higher? Is healthcare perhaps better in the USA then europe and NZ? I think its unlikely, but am I missing something?

 

[Danoff]

How come overal mortality and suicide are somewhat similair, but homicide, car/gun related deaths are much higher?

Most people don't get murdered.

Is healthcare perhaps better in the USA then europe and NZ?

Yes.

Even if you remove gun-related deaths from the homicide statistic, we're still over the homicide rates of the other countries. So unless you think guns are somehow causing murders which don't involve guns, you're gonna need another theory for why the US is so violent.

 

[PocketZeven]

Most people don't get murdered.



Yes.

Even if you remove gun-related deaths from the homicide statistic, we're still over the homicide rates of the other countries. So unless you think guns are somehow causing murders which don't involve guns, you're gonna need another theory for why the US is so violent.

In regards to the differences between USA, UK, NL and NZ. Mortality between the 4 are similair, homicide, car/gun related deaths vary a lot more between them. But I see I might have worded it incorrectly.

I already said I wont go there, so what is the explanation for the higher traffic related deaths and homicides?

 

[Danoff]

In regards to the differences between USA, UK, NL and NZ. Mortality between the 4 are similair, homicide, car/gun related deaths vary a lot more between them. But I see I might have worded it incorrectly.

Can you post your sources so that I can see what went into the data?

I already said I wont go there, so what is the explanation for the higher traffic related deaths and homicides?

Dunno. Something other than guns though, because it exists independently of guns being involved. There's another piece of evidence to back that up too:

Also did you know that just 2% of the USA's districts account for more than half of all homicides? It's not even within a close margin from town to town.

How does the presence of guns in the other 98% cause the homicides in that 2%? We need another explanation.

 

[PocketZeven]

Can you post your sources so that I can see what went into the data?



Dunno. Something other than guns though, because it exists independently of guns being involved. There's another piece of evidence to back that up too:




How does the presence of guns in the other 98% cause the homicides in that 2%? We need another explanation.

sure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_mortality_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Is he referring to states or disctrict? That cant be correct though. I cant see that reflected in below sources:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

I never claimed guns cause the homicides. I always meant that easy acces to guns makes it easier to enact a homicide. It would be interesting to see if that "district" has high or low gunownership. At least there should be some connection.

That said it doesnt explain why non-homicide mortality is so much lower in the usa then UK, NL and NZ. Since the overall mortality are similair.

 

[Danoff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_mortality_rate

Right so most people don't get murdered. So it doesn't have a huge impact on mortality rate.

Is he referring to states or disctrict?

I don't think he's talking states. I think he's referring to some of the more violent cities in the US.

 

[PocketZeven]

Right so most people don't get murdered. So it doesn't have a huge impact on mortality rate.

What do you mean?

 

[BobK]

What do you mean?

Simply put:

Everyone dies, eventually (mortality rate)

Most people don't get murdered.