It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Monsieur_PatateBasically the western world, comparable in terms of culture, lifestyle, political and judicial system, etc. Basically EU countries, the US, Canada, that bunch of comparable democracies. But you knew that, you're grasping at straws at this point, that's all you got.
no actually I didn’t know that, that’s a completely arbitrary definition that you made up lol. But now that we have established that “developed” nations are a handful of countries in Western Europe and Canada I want you to look at the rates of poverty in each of those countries. I think that you’ll see that the US has a much higher rate of people living at or below the poverty line than any of them. It is well know that poverty breeds crime. It is a statistically proven fact that it does and that is the reason police focus in particular on poorer communities when they are on patrol. Go ahead and look it up. If you want to know why we have a higher rate of homicide than your “developed” countries, it is because we have more poor people.
Monsieur_PatateI was born and raised in Europe, I know a thing or two about how things work over there, but thanks for sharing your insights lol.
It seems you have reading comprehension issues, I said "in most of the EU" precisely because not all countries have the same laws, that's why I said 'most'. And I think beyond restrictions, guns might be banned altogether in a couple of countries actually, although I'm not sure, feel free to look into it if you care.
It doesn't change my point though: in most of the EU, you can buy guns, all guns aren't banned, you just have more hoops to jump through, you need a licence, etc. Can you get all the same guns you can purchase here? No, but I didn't say you could. I literately just said "law abiding citizens can still get guns", which is true, they can get guns.
Keep grasping at straws tho, it's entertaining.
Lol no amount of irrelevant coping is going to make up for you being straight up wrong when it comes to gun laws in Europe. You’re waaaaay out of your depth kiddo.
Craw_Daddyno actually I didn’t know that, that’s a completely arbitrary definition that you made up lol. But now that we have established that “developed” nations are a handful of countries in Western Europe and Canada I want you to look at the rates of poverty in each of those countries. I think that you’ll see that the US has a much higher rate of people living at or below the poverty line than any of them. It is well know that poverty breeds crime. It is a statistically proven fact that it does and that is the reason police focus in particular on poorer communities when they are on patrol. Go ahead and look it up. If you want to know why we have a higher rate of homicide than your “developed” countries, it is because we have more poor people.
Changed my mind, don't want to be involved in this conversation
**This post was edited on Sep 7th 2022 at 4:01:34pm
Craw_Daddyno actually I didn’t know that, that’s a completely arbitrary definition that you made up lol. But now that we have established that “developed” nations are a handful of countries in Western Europe and Canada I want you to look at the rates of poverty in each of those countries. I think that you’ll see that the US has a much higher rate of people living at or below the poverty line than any of them. It is well know that poverty breeds crime. It is a statistically proven fact that it does and that is the reason police focus in particular on poorer communities when they are on patrol. Go ahead and look it up. If you want to know why we have a higher rate of homicide than your “developed” countries, it is because we have more poor people.
We're going in circles now, I've already mentioned that France has a higher crime index than the US, and yet their homicide rate is much lower. Besides reading skills, I see logic isn't your strong suit either.
Craw_DaddyLol no amount of irrelevant coping is going to make up for you being straight up wrong when it comes to gun laws in Europe. You’re waaaaay out of your depth kiddo.
Yet you can't even mention one specific thing I said that was wrong, whereas I've shown, with data to back it up, that the entirety of your argument is wrong.
People can buy guns in most European countries, that's just another fact you can keep denying all you want, won't change the reality. Keep grasping for air lmao.
I've given you data debunking every single 'reasons' you came up with as to why the US would have the highest homicide rate in the western world: overall crime, diversity, tough judicial system, etc. For every single one of them, I gave you examples of western countries doing worse or similar in those metrics that still achieve a significantly better homicide rate.
You keep looking for correlation, I'll give you one: Highest gun ownership rate of the western world (by far), highest homicide rate of the western world (by far). That's just a fact.
Keep refreshing your facebook feed old man, gather some more of your 'research' and then get back to me, I'll be happy to debunk the next one.
Monsieur_PatateWe're going in circles now, I've already mentioned that France has a higher crime index than the US, and yet their homicide rate is much lower. Besides reading skills, I see logic isn't your strong suit either.
You're absolutely right. Please explain the relevance of France's ranking on the "crime index" to my point that poverty and violent crime are related. Make sure you copy the police departments in every major city around the world since they all patrol the poorer areas of town specifically because more crimes are committed there. I'm sure they would all be interested to see what you have to say.
I've given you data debunking every single 'reasons' you came up with as to why the US would have the highest homicide rate in the western world: overall crime, diversity, tough judicial system, etc. For every single one of them, I gave you examples of western countries doing worse or similar in those metrics that still achieve a significantly better homicide rate.
You keep looking for correlation, I'll give you one: Highest gun ownership rate of the western world (by far), highest homicide rate of the western world (by far). That's just a fact.
Keep refreshing your facebook feed old man, gather some more of your 'research' and then get back to me, I'll be happy to debunk the next one.
You haven't debunked anything lol. You're trying to represent yourself as arguing in good faith while refusing to admit that Absentee fathers, poverty rates, and racial disparities are all factors that contribute to violent crime. No, it's definitely all just the availability of guns lmao. At the end of the day, The US ranks 64th in the world in homicide, and if your theory that guns cause violence was correct then we would be number one. I don't need any more proof than that. All you've done here is intentionally obfuscate your definitions and metrics in an attempt to appear correct but anyone with half a brain can see right through your bullshit. I will concede that guns can make violent crime more severe but they do not make people violent in the first place. We should be focusing our efforts on addressing the things that make people violent before trying to remove a constitutionally protected right.
Craw_DaddyYou're absolutely right. Please explain the relevance of France's ranking on the "crime index" to my point that poverty and violent crime are related. Make sure you copy the police departments in every major city around the world since they all patrol the poorer areas of town specifically because more crimes are committed there. I'm sure they would all be interested to see what you have to say.
You haven't debunked anything lol. You're trying to represent yourself as arguing in good faith while refusing to admit that Absentee fathers, poverty rates, and racial disparities are all factors that contribute to violent crime. No, it's definitely all just the availability of guns lmao. At the end of the day, The US ranks 64th in the world in homicide, and if your theory that guns cause violence was correct then we would be number one. I don't need any more proof than that. All you've done here is intentionally obfuscate your definitions and metrics in an attempt to appear correct but anyone with half a brain can see right through your bullshit. I will concede that guns can make violent crime more severe but they do not make people violent in the first place. We should be focusing our efforts on addressing the things that make people violent before trying to remove a constitutionally protected right.
I'm going to give you a recap of where we are:
'Why does the US have the highest homicide rate among western countries?'
Me: "Probably because of easier access to guns than those other western countries. Guns create more problem than they solve from a crime standpoint."
You: "No, gun ownership actually helps reduce homicides, if it weren't for all the guns we have, we'd have an even higher murder rate, we need more guns to solve the problem."
Me: "We already have the highest gun ownership rate in the western world by far, if having more gun was helping with homicides, we'd be faring better than being dead last in murder rate among those same western countries, seems like the data isn't baking up your claim, you're being silly."
You: "No, we have more homicides for other reasons, we have more: ethnic diversity, single-parent homes, crime in general (due to more poverty), laxer justice system than those other western countries, that's why we have more homicides, not because we have more guns."
Me: "Well, that's not true, here are examples of other western countries with even worse metrics than us in these areas and yet much less homicides, so these are not the reasons why we're doing worse than those western countries murder-wise, the data available is disproving your claims. I still think the actual reason why we do worse is gun availability, that seems to me to be the most plausible explanation."
You: "You refuse to admit that the factors I mentioned contribute to violent crimes"
So picking it up from there:
No, I'm not refusing to admit that, I agree with you that those are contributing factors. I've never said otherwise, guns are not the only reason people kill each other, and I actually said as much in my first or second post: people will still kill each other with their bare hands if they have to, for many reasons. But my point is that by making guns easily available we make it significantly easier for people to kill each other, therefore inflating the homicide rate. More guns don't prevent more homicides than they cause, it's the other way around.
Gun availability is just another contributing factor to add to your list, and that's actually the only factor where we have a huge delta compared to those other western countries. So trying to think logically, I'm only saying addressing that by adopting gun regulations similar to theirs, will in turn most likely drop our homicide rate closer to theirs too. That's all.
Monsieur_PatateI'm going to give you a recap of where we are:
'Why does the US have the highest homicide rate among western countries?'
Me: "Probably because of easier access to guns than those other western countries. Guns create more problem than they solve from a crime standpoint."
You: "No, gun ownership actually helps reduce homicides, if it weren't for all the guns we have, we'd have an even higher murder rate, we need more guns to solve the problem."
Me: "We already have the highest gun ownership rate in the western world by far, if having more gun was helping with homicides, we'd be faring better than being dead last in murder rate among those same western countries, seems like the data isn't baking up your claim, you're being silly."
You: "No, we have more homicides for other reasons, we have more: ethnic diversity, single-parent homes, crime in general (due to more poverty), laxer justice system than those other western countries, that's why we have more homicides, not because we have more guns."
Me: "Well, that's not true, here are examples of other western countries with even worse metrics than us in these areas and yet much less homicides, so these are not the reasons why we're doing worse than those western countries murder-wise, the data available is disproving your claims. I still think the actual reason why we do worse is gun availability, that seems to me to be the most plausible explanation."
You: "You refuse to admit that the factors I mentioned contribute to violent crimes"
So picking it up from there:
No, I'm not refusing to admit that, I agree with you that those are contributing factors. I've never said otherwise, guns are not the only reason people kill each other, and I actually said as much in my first or second post: people will still kill each other with their bare hands if they have to, for many reasons. But my point is that by making guns easily available we make it significantly easier for people to kill each other, therefore inflating the homicide rate. More guns don't prevent more homicides than they cause, it's the other way around.
Gun availability is just another contributing factor to add to your list, and that's actually the only factor where we have a huge delta compared to those other western countries. So trying to think logically, I'm only saying addressing that by adopting gun regulations similar to theirs, will in turn most likely drop our homicide rate closer to theirs too. That's all.
What the fuck kind of bull shit paraphrasing is this man? Are you serious right now?? You're really going to sit there and put words in my mouth and then have an argument based on that? fuck you're dumb.
We have more poverty, fatherless households, and a larger minority population than any of the countries you consider "developed" which is why our rate of homicide is so high. Do guns make it easier to commit homicide? maybe, but what I know for certain is that they don't make people who weren't already willing to kill someone more willing. We are ranked 64th in the world in our rate of homicide.
Craw_DaddyWe have more poverty, fatherless households, and a larger minority population than any of the countries you consider "developed" which is why our rate of homicide is so high. Do guns make it easier to commit homicide? maybe, but what I know for certain is that they don't make people who weren't already willing to kill someone more willing. We are ranked 64th in the world in our rate of homicide.
You just keep being wrong, it's embarrassing, here's the data you seem unable to find on your own: Poverty: Spain has 2.5% of it's pop living under $5.5 a day, the US 'only' 1,5%. Italy has 1.39% of its pop living under $1.9 a day, the US 'only' 1%. The US is comparable to those two, and a bunch of other countries too, you can go through the rest of the list yourself.
Fatherless households: I've addressed that in a previous post already, the US is comparable to a bunch of European countries such as the UK and France.
Minority population: Same as above, answered in a previous post already. Canada for example has a larger % of minorities as well as ethnic diversity than the US.
You keep going back to the same made up bs, and I'll keep proving you wrong. We do not have more "poverty, fatherless households, and a larger minority population" than other western countries. As shown above, there are other western countries in a similar, if not worse situation than the US regarding those metrics and yet all of those countries have a lower homicide rate than the US (by a LOT too, we're talking 2-6x, not even close).
Btw the US is 59th/195 when it comes to the homicide rate, I just want to make sure you understand that higher is better in that ranking, because you keep bringing it up as a 'good' thing, I don't think you actually realize that this is not good at all? You want to be 195th on that ranking, not 1st, the US is only doing better than 58 countries, and 137 countries are doing better than the US, we're bottom third. And filtered to western countries, the US is the worst, by a LOT.
Monsieur_PatateYou just keep being wrong, it's embarrassing, here's the data you seem unable to find on your own: Poverty: Spain has 2.5% of it's pop living under $5.5 a day, the US 'only' 1,5%. Italy has 1.39% of its pop living under $1.9 a day, the US 'only' 1%. The US is comparable to those two, and a bunch of other countries too, you can go through the rest of the list yourself.
Fatherless households: I've addressed that in a previous post already, the US is comparable to a bunch of European countries such as the UK and France.
Minority population: Same as above, answered in a previous post already. Canada for example has a larger % of minorities as well as ethnic diversity than the US.
You keep going back to the same made up bs, and I'll keep proving you wrong. We do not have more "poverty, fatherless households, and a larger minority population" than other western countries. As shown above, there are other western countries in a similar, if not worse situation than the US regarding those metrics and yet all of those countries have a lower homicide rate than the US (by a LOT too, we're talking 2-6x, not even close).
Btw the US is 59th/195 when it comes to the homicide rate, I just want to make sure you understand that higher is better in that ranking, because you keep bringing it up as a 'good' thing, I don't think you actually realize that this is not good at all? You want to be 195th on that ranking, not 1st, the US is only doing better than 58 countries, and 137 countries are doing better than the US, we're bottom third. And filtered to western countries, the US is the worst, by a LOT.
Do you not understand that the poverty line is different in each country. I didn’t say people living under $5.50 a day. I said people living in poverty you idiot. And you’re literally ADMITTING that we have the highest rate of fatherless households lmao
**This post was edited on Sep 7th 2022 at 8:54:29pm
Craw_DaddyDo you not understand that the poverty line is different in each country. I didn’t say people living under $5.50 a day. I said people living in poverty you idiot. And you’re literally ADMITTING that we have the highest rate of fatherless households lmao
**This post was edited on Sep 7th 2022 at 8:54:29pm
I invite you to lookup what comparable means.
23% vs 21% is very much comparable for single parent household. Same reasoning I used for poverty, some EU countries have technically more poverty, but it's comparable, so practically the same there too. Point is the US does not really have more "poverty, fatherless households, and a larger minority population", it's comparable to most western countries, slightly lower in some, slightly higher in other, but not any large statistical difference for those metrics.
You know what's NOT comparable though? The homicide rate, the US has a homicide rate that is 300-700% higher than that of other western countries depending on which one you pick.
HiHowAreYouGentlemen, gentlemen, please. There's a problem here for which you are not accounting.
Yeah this is the inconvenient truth that no one wants to acknowledge. Meanwhile Pepe le bitch is in here showing maps where they distinguish between slightly different shades of white in Europe and saying SeE tHeYRe JuSt aS DiVeRsE oVeR tHeRe. France did not have Jim Crowe laws, Norway does not have inner city ghettos. We are not comparable to Europe lol.
Monsieur_PatateI invite you to lookup what comparable means.
23% vs 21% is very much comparable for single parent household. Same reasoning I used for poverty, some EU countries have technically more poverty, but it's comparable, so practically the same there too. Point is the US does not really have more "poverty, fatherless households, and a larger minority population", it's comparable to most western countries, slightly lower in some, slightly higher in other, but not any large statistical difference for those metrics.
You know what's NOT comparable though? The homicide rate, the US has a homicide rate that is 300-700% higher than that of other western countries depending on which one you pick.
Dude all I have to do is look at your data to know you’re full of shit. Go look at the Wikipedia article you linked earlier on murder rate. Notice how the US data comes from 2020 and yet some of the other countries data is well over a decade old. 2020 was an outlier for murder in the US. Much higher than it was in previous years. You can’t use an outlier as your single data point lol
skiermanLOL it took two men multiple hours over multiple locations to rack up this kill count. In the U.S., this would have been easily achieved in 5 minutes by a single pre-teen.
This is yet another example of how the U.S. is better than everyone else, even our mass murders.
Oh man two men multiple hours and locations.
Let's just paint it as another statistic you stupid ugly prick.
Craw_DaddyDude all I have to do is look at your data to know you’re full of shit. Go look at the Wikipedia article you linked earlier on murder rate. Notice how the US data comes from 2020 and yet some of the other countries data is well over a decade old. 2020 was an outlier for murder in the US. Much higher than it was in previous years. You can’t use an outlier as your single data point lol
You're the one who argued the homicide rate has been steadily declining for decades, which seems true btw, both in the US and worldwide. The world homicide rate went down 20% since 1990, definitely a global downward trend. So those countries using data from a decade ago would therefore be at a disadvantage by using older data too? It goes both ways.
But frankly this is irrelevant anyway, since I didn't use 2020 data to come up with the 300-700% range for how much the US' homicide rate is higher than that of other western countries, I used the graph posted on the first page of this thread, which uses older data (it only has a 5.2 rate for the US when it was 6.5 in 2020). I could have cherry picked 2020 numbers to make that range look even worse but I didn't, there's no need for that since no matter which of the past few years you pick, the US homicide rate remains at least 3 times that of the worst of other western countries, it's not close at all even if you cherry picked the best US year and the worst year for the worst other western country.
As to the worldwide ranking from the wikipedia article vs. the one you found.. 59th or 64th, if your argument relies on the US being bottom 33% and not bottom 30% worldwide, it's a pretty weak argument, it's awful regardless. And the fact still remains that the US is the worst (by far) of the western world.
Monsieur_PatateYou're the one who argued the homicide rate has been steadily declining for decades, which seems true btw, both in the US and worldwide. The world homicide rate went down 20% since 1990, definitely a global downward trend. So those countries using data from a decade ago would therefore be at a disadvantage by using older data too? It goes both ways.
But frankly this is irrelevant anyway, since I didn't use 2020 data to come up with the 300-700% range for how much the US' homicide rate is higher than that of other western countries, I used the graph posted on the first page of this thread, which uses older data (it only has a 5.2 rate for the US when it was 6.5 in 2020). I could have cherry picked 2020 numbers to make that range look even worse but I didn't, there's no need for that since no matter which of the past few years you pick, the US homicide rate remains at least 3 times that of the worst of other western countries, it's not close at all even if you cherry picked the best US year and the worst year for the worst other western country.
As to the worldwide ranking from the wikipedia article vs. the one you found.. 59th or 64th, if your argument relies on the US being bottom 33% and not bottom 30% worldwide, it's a pretty weak argument, it's awful regardless. And the fact still remains that the US is the worst (by far) of the western world.
Lol for someone using so many statistics in your argument it seems strange that have a complete lack of understanding of linear regression and p-value. As for your comment about "cherry-picking data"... you've been doing that this whole time and it's obvious to everyone except you. In the words of Mark Twain: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. I mean just look at how you're now using the "western world" as your go-to metric now. I thought we were the worst amongst "developed countries"... you keep changing your phrasing lol.
Just keep moving those goalposts man. It's honestly funny.
Craw_DaddyYeah this is the inconvenient truth that no one wants to acknowledge. Meanwhile Pepe le bitch is in here showing maps where they distinguish between slightly different shades of white in Europe and saying SeE tHeYRe JuSt aS DiVeRsE oVeR tHeRe. France did not have Jim Crowe laws, Norway does not have inner city ghettos. We are not comparable to Europe lol.
How is that inconvenient? Sad maybe, not inconvenient, explainable by systemic racism too. (I'm sure this will trigger you)
The graph posted on the first page shows the split in the US, and even if you cherry pick only white people in the US, the rate is still higher than that of other western countries. This doesn't do anything for your argument.
On top of that, the same trend can unfortunately be observed in those other countries too. Ethnicity crime data is scarcer in other countries (maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I think overall the US is more transparent that other countries in that regard), but it seems that at least for Canada or the UK, same trend, higher homicide rate among minority groups.
Craw_DaddyLol for someone using so many statistics in your argument it seems strange that have a complete lack of understanding of linear regression and p-value. As for your comment about "cherry-picking data"... you've been doing that this whole time and it's obvious to everyone except you. In the words of Mark Twain: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. I mean just look at how you're now using the "western world" as your go-to metric now. I thought we were the worst amongst "developed countries"... you keep changing your phrasing lol.
Just keep moving those goalposts man. It's honestly funny.
Pretty early on I defined that for you: similar culture, lifestyle, political and judicial system, but let me help you understand:
"Today, the most widely used definition of the Western World, also known as the "Latin West," is based entirely on culture rather than geography. In this usage, Western World refers to all of the countries of Western Europe, as well as those countries shaped by Western European culture. For example, countries such as the United States and Australia, which were once British colonies and which adopted Western European Christianity (Catholic and Protestant churches), which use the Latin alphabet, and whose populations include many people descended from European colonists.
In practical terms, this means the Western World typically includes most countries of the European Union as well as the U.K., Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand."
Surprised you're not familiar with that term, it's pretty commonly used, that's what I've been referring to, comparable countries. I may have referred to it as 'developed countries' here and there, which was an oversight on my part, I realize there are developed nations outside of the western world (although the vast majority of them are in the 'western world'), so I've corrected that in recent posts.
I know you're just grasping at straws but I figured I'd give you a serious answer.
**This post was edited on Sep 8th 2022 at 12:01:12pm
Monsieur_PatateGun violence = violence inflicted with a gun (homicide, suicide, unintentional death, robbery, etc.) I'm fine sticking with homicides tho, it's obviously the easiest to argue about since it's virtually automatically reported. Mass shooting falls under homicides.
Where did I say the US was leading the world in homicide again? You're again misquoting me on purpose because you have no argument. But I'll bite, the US most definitely leads the developed world (i.e comparable countries) in homicide rate, by like a lot, it's not even close:
Guess what? The US also has the highest gun ownership rate, not only of comparable countries tho, of the entire world:
You were arguing higher gun ownership would reduce homicides? (without providing a iota of evidence to back up that claim btw, which doesn't surprise me since it doesn't exist.)
We've basically been applying your strategy for the past century, to the point that we're first in gun ownership, and yet we're stuck with the worst homicide rate in the developed world. Seems to me that's your strategy isn't really paying off?
So maybe instead of just banning guns we should actually help improve inner city hell holes where the murders are all happening which is mainly black people killing other black people...
Monsieur_PatatePretty early on I defined that for you: similar culture, lifestyle, political and judicial system, but let me help you understand:
"Today, the most widely used definition of the Western World, also known as the "Latin West," is based entirely on culture rather than geography. In this usage, Western World refers to all of the countries of Western Europe, as well as those countries shaped by Western European culture. For example, countries such as the United States and Australia, which were once British colonies and which adopted Western European Christianity (Catholic and Protestant churches), which use the Latin alphabet, and whose populations include many people descended from European colonists.
In practical terms, this means the Western World typically includes most countries of the European Union as well as the U.K., Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand."
Surprised you're not familiar with that term, it's pretty commonly used, that's what I've been referring to, comparable countries. I may have referred to it as 'developed countries' here and there, which was an oversight on my part, I realize there are developed nations outside of the western world (although the vast majority of them are in the 'western world'), so I've corrected that in recent posts.
I know you're just grasping at straws but I figured I'd give you a serious answer.
**This post was edited on Sep 8th 2022 at 12:01:12pm
You know I'm so glad that you listed out those countries considered to be a part of the western world. I think there is one in particular that is especially relevant to this discussion: Australia. As you may or may not know in 1996 the worst mass shooting in their history occurred, the Port Arthur Massacre. After this, their government passed sweeping gun reform. They banned all semi-automatic weapons and pump action shotguns with exceptions for a small number of individuals who got permits, they also required all gun owners to register their firearms and get a firearm license. Overall they removed more than 650,000 guns from the streets. Do you know what happened to their homicide rate the following year? It actually went up! That's right they removed 650,000 guns from the streets and the number of homicides increased. This happened in spite of the global trend, that you've already acknowledged, of homicide rates going down. In 1999 (3 years after these gun control measures were passed!) the homicide rate increased by 14%
So, if your theory that guns cause homicides was correct would we not expect a sharp decrease in the number of homicides Immediately following the implementation of gun control measures? Well, we didn't...
SuspiciousFishSo maybe instead of just banning guns we should actually help improve inner city hell holes where the murders are all happening which is mainly black people killing other black people...
I don't disagree, we should certainly allocate more budget to improving the situation in those areas, reduce inequalities, the increasing wealth disparity, etc. This should in turn help reduce crime. But I don't see that happening anytime soon, no way centrists or conservatives would let that slip in the budget. Bootstraps or nothing for these guys.
Craw_DaddyYou know I'm so glad that you listed out those countries considered to be a part of the western world. I think there is one in particular that is especially relevant to this discussion: Australia. As you may or may not know in 1996 the worst mass shooting in their history occurred, the Port Arthur Massacre. After this, their government passed sweeping gun reform. They banned all semi-automatic weapons and pump action shotguns with exceptions for a small number of individuals who got permits, they also required all gun owners to register their firearms and get a firearm license. Overall they removed more than 650,000 guns from the streets. Do you know what happened to their homicide rate the following year? It actually went up! That's right they removed 650,000 guns from the streets and the number of homicides increased. This happened in spite of the global trend, that you've already acknowledged, of homicide rates going down. In 1999 (3 years after these gun control measures were passed!) the homicide rate increased by 14%
So, if your theory that guns cause homicides was correct would we not expect a sharp decrease in the number of homicides Immediately following the implementation of gun control measures? Well, we didn't...
I'm glad you brought that up too!
Looking at only the following year is pretty reductive, don't you think? In fact, I'd probably argue that if we were to implement the same restrictive laws in the US, we'd probably see a sharp increase in gun sales just prior to implementing the law, and an uptick in gun violence for the next few years too. I even think it would likely take decades before we see the impact of strict gun regulation in the US due to the sheer number of guns in circulation, it will take a long time for that number to actually go down significantly enough that it makes a difference. You can't remove all the guns already in circulation by snapping fingers, you can only take a fraction out, and then over time it decreases because you're preventing new guns from entering the market. (I'm pretty sure it'd take much longer to achieve similar results in the US than in Australia too because there are proportionally many more guns in circulation to begin with)
But back to Australia, here's the graph showing the trend in Australia since 1996:
Same graph for the US:
Using 2019 for the US: in the US it's a 31% decline, in Australia it's a 56% decline. So Australia is doing much better than the US over that same period. Plus, I'll add that I did you a solid by using 2019 numbers for the US (with 2020 data it would be only an 11% decline in the US vs 56% decline in Australia, yikes!), you keep bitching about 2020 being an outlier, but latest estimates show 2021 is expected to be even higher than 2020!
The university of Sidney did a study on the impact of gun laws in Australia. Go through the details if you'd like, they basically estimate that the odds of mass shootings dropping since the laws due to chance are one in 200,000. (you'll appreciate the P value of less than 0.001)
Could the exact same thing be replicated here in the US? Who knows, causation can't be unequivocally proven, but I personally like those odds.
Looking at only the following year is pretty reductive, don't you think? In fact, I'd probably argue that if we were to implement the same restrictive laws in the US, we'd probably see a sharp increase in gun sales just prior to implementing the law, and an uptick in gun violence for the next few years too. I even think it would likely take decades before we see the impact of strict gun regulation in the US due to the sheer number of guns in circulation, it will take a long time for that number to actually go down significantly enough that it makes a difference. You can't remove all the guns already in circulation by snapping fingers, you can only take a fraction out, and then over time it decreases because you're preventing new guns from entering the market. (I'm pretty sure it'd take much longer to achieve similar results in the US than in Australia too because there are proportionally many more guns in circulation to begin with)
But back to Australia, here's the graph showing the trend in Australia since 1996:
Same graph for the US:
Using 2019 for the US: in the US it's a 31% decline, in Australia it's a 56% decline. So Australia is doing much better than the US over that same period. Plus, I'll add that I did you a solid by using 2019 numbers for the US (with 2020 data it would be only an 11% decline in the US vs 56% decline in Australia, yikes!), you keep bitching about 2020 being an outlier, but latest estimates show 2021 is expected to be even higher than 2020!
The university of Sidney did a study on the impact of gun laws in Australia. Go through the details if you'd like, they basically estimate that the odds of mass shootings dropping since the laws due to chance are one in 200,000. (you'll appreciate the P value of less than 0.001)
Could the exact same thing be replicated here in the US? Who knows, causation can't be unequivocally proven, but I personally like those odds.
So let me get the straight, your entire argument on why homicides in Australia didn't meaningfully decrease until 5 years after gun control laws were passed is: "Maybe more people went out and bought guns before the buyback, we should just expect an uptick in violence for a couple years after, cause that's totally normal lol"... the bans on the sales of semi-automatic firearms was immediate. The total number of guns in Australia was reduced by 20% between 1996 and 1997. Yet we did not see a 20% decrease in the number of homicides. As it turns out, the people who wanted to kill someone just found another way to do it. As for your bit about homicides in the US going up in 2020, yeaaahh that definitely had nothing to do with the global pandemic and millions losing their jobs or anything. nope it was clearly the guns lol.
Craw_DaddySo let me get the straight, your entire argument on why homicides in Australia didn't meaningfully decrease until 5 years after gun control laws were passed is: "Maybe more people went out and bought guns before the buyback, we should just expect an uptick in violence for a couple years after, cause that's totally normal lol"... the bans on the sales of semi-automatic firearms was immediate. The total number of guns in Australia was reduced by 20% between 1996 and 1997. Yet we did not see a 20% decrease in the number of homicides. As it turns out, the people who wanted to kill someone just found another way to do it. As for your bit about homicides in the US going up in 2020, yeaaahh that definitely had nothing to do with the global pandemic and millions losing their jobs or anything. nope it was clearly the guns lol.
The pandemic happened all over the world, not sure if you heard? Why would there be an uptick in the US but not in other western countries if it's because of the pandemic?
Of course it takes years to see the impact of gun legislation, especially since you're most likely to see the people least likely to commit a crime handing over their guns first.
Monsieur_PatateThe pandemic happened all over the world, not sure if you heard? Why would there be an uptick in the US but not in other western countries if it's because of the pandemic?
Joblessness and homelessness were much more pervasive issues in the US than they were elsewhere. That happened as a direct result of the pandemic.
Of course it takes years to see the impact of gun legislation
Why would it take years to see the results of gun control in Australia's case? The laws went into effect immediately 12 days after Port Arthur. They are an isolated island nation. New guns were not coming in and they reduced the total number of guns in country by 20% within a year.
especially since you're most likely to see the people least likely to commit a crime handing over their guns first.
Craw_DaddyJoblessness and homelessness were much more pervasive issues in the US than they were elsewhere. That happened as a direct result of the pandemic.
Why would it take years to see the results of gun control in Australia's case? The laws went into effect immediately 12 days after Port Arthur. They are an isolated island nation. New guns were not coming in and they reduced the total number of guns in country by 20% within a year.
Haha I'll agree with you here ;)
Shut the fuck up jackass. Ur not qualified to talk politics and gun laws. U trying to discuss those subjects is like a homeless man trying to explain heart surgery. U sound dumb ass a mother fucker. Quit embarrassing yourself . Learn ur place
johnnyfairplayShut the fuck up jackass. Ur not qualified to talk politics and gun laws. U trying to discuss those subjects is like a homeless man trying to explain heart surgery. U sound dumb ass a mother fucker. Quit embarrassing yourself . Learn ur place
Craw_DaddyJoblessness and homelessness were much more pervasive issues in the US than they were elsewhere. That happened as a direct result of the pandemic.
I don't disagree that a worsening of the economic situation would logically lead to more crime, and therefore more homicides. The question is to what extent? I'd argue that if this was such a significant correlation, you'd see a rise in homicide rate across countries where the pandemic hit the job market. Maybe that spike would be more pronounced in the US if the hit was hardest there, but we should still see a spike elsewhere too. But we don't, so if impact there is, it's probably minimal at best, and not the most important factor. There's something else causing the spike, probably a combination of factors.
Moreover, if unemployment and homelessness was such a big factor into homicides, you'd think more of both would lead to more homicides. The US seems to have one of the lowest unemployment rate across western countries, and also a lower homelessness rate than a lot of other western countries too (France, Germany and the UK to name a few). Despite that, all of those have a much lower homicide rate than the US. So does it play into it? Yeah, maybe, but it doesn't seem like this is a main factor, and my money is still on gun access likely having a much larger impact since the correlation is much, much stronger there.
Monsieur_PatateI don't disagree that a worsening of the economic situation would logically lead to more crime, and therefore more homicides. The question is to what extent? I'd argue that if this was such a significant correlation, you'd see a rise in homicide rate across countries where the pandemic hit the job market. Maybe that spike would be more pronounced in the US if the hit was hardest there, but we should still see a spike elsewhere too. But we don't, so if impact there is, it's probably minimal at best, and not the most important factor. There's something else causing the spike, probably a combination of factors.
Moreover, if unemployment and homelessness was such a big factor into homicides, you'd think more of both would lead to more homicides. The US seems to have one of the lowest unemployment rate across western countries, and also a lower homelessness rate than a lot of other western countries too (France, Germany and the UK to name a few). Despite that, all of those have a much lower homicide rate than the US. So does it play into it? Yeah, maybe, but it doesn't seem like this is a main factor, and my money is still on gun access likely having a much larger impact since the correlation is much, much stronger there.
See, common ground!
lol don't change the subject big guy. Please explain why it took 5 years to see a significant reduction in homicides in Australia... They implemented all the laws you want. Waiting periods and licenses prevented hot-headed individuals from going out and buying guns to kill someone. Access to those dangerous semi-automatic firearms you hate so much was immediately removed. All the people of Australia had access to after April 1996 were good ol double barrels, single shots, and air guns. They turned in 650,000 semi-automatic and pump action firearms, surely that would have some impact if your assertion that guns cause homicides was correct. Why would it take 5 years? That doesn't make sense. What actually happened was that homicides continued on with their downward trend as they had been for years before 1996 and taking away guns didn't make a difference.
Craw_Daddylol don't change the subject big guy. Please explain why it took 5 years to see a significant reduction in homicides in Australia... They implemented all the laws you want. Waiting periods and licenses prevented hot-headed individuals from going out and buying guns to kill someone. Access to those dangerous semi-automatic firearms you hate so much was immediately removed. All the people of Australia had access to after April 1996 were good ol double barrels, single shots, and air guns. They turned in 650,000 semi-automatic and pump action firearms, surely that would have some impact if your assertion that guns cause homicides was correct. Why would it take 5 years? That doesn't make sense. What actually happened was that homicides continued on with their downward trend as they had been for years before 1996 and taking away guns didn't make a difference.
How am I changing the subject? I'm literally replying to you claim that it's because of 'pervasive' homelessness in the US that there's more homicides. Data shows it's wrong, that's all.
That's typical with you, you throw these unsubstantiated claims, don't provide any evidence to back them up and when you're proven wrong, you just come up with some new made up bs, and the circle continues. We've now made it through what, 6 or 7 of your supposed 'reasons' why the US has so many homicides? It's always just 'trust me bro', no evidence, I've disproved every single one of them using actual data, and you just keep making up new bullshit along the way.
You want to go back to Australia, sure, I looked into it some more, and I'm ready to prove you wrong, once again.
The data you referenced is for all homicides regardless of weapon used, but if you look at homicides by firearm, it's a very different picture:
This is from this study, you'll see they have the same trend you noted for all homicides, but they actually also break it down by weapon used, and you can see the significant drop in firearm homicides right after the agreement. Non-firearm homicides stayed stagnant or increased for a few years, but firearm homicides dropped.
See, direct results following the agreement, I explained it for you.
I'll also tell you that we could probably expect to see an even more drastic reduction in the US with similar regulation for 2 reasons:
1. Gun regulations in Australia prior to the agreement were already stricter than there are today in the US.
2. The portion of guns being used in homicides in Australia prior to the agreement (only 18% of homicides only in 1995 were with a firearm in Australia) is much, much lower than it is today in the US (79% of homicides involve a firearm in the US). So take the same portion of guns away in the US and you should logically expect an even more drastic drop.
Let me know what you need me to google for you next. You really need to stop repeating whatever you read on Facebook without confirming it's actually true first, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Monsieur_PatateHow am I changing the subject? I'm literally replying to you claim that it's because of 'pervasive' homelessness in the US that there's more homicides. Data shows it's wrong, that's all.
That's typical with you, you throw these unsubstantiated claims, don't provide any evidence to back them up and when you're proven wrong, you just come up with some new made up bs, and the circle continues. We've now made it through what, 6 or 7 of your supposed 'reasons' why the US has so many homicides? It's always just 'trust me bro', no evidence, I've disproved every single one of them using actual data, and you just keep making up new bullshit along the way.
You want to go back to Australia, sure, I looked into it some more, and I'm ready to prove you wrong, once again.
The data you referenced is for all homicides regardless of weapon used, but if you look at homicides by firearm, it's a very different picture:
This is from this study, you'll see they have the same trend you noted for all homicides, but they actually also break it down by weapon used, and you can see the significant drop in firearm homicides right after the agreement. Non-firearm homicides stayed stagnant or increased for a few years, but firearm homicides dropped.
See, direct results following the agreement, I explained it for you.
I'll also tell you that we could probably expect to see an even more drastic reduction in the US with similar regulation for 2 reasons:
1. Gun regulations in Australia prior to the agreement were already stricter than there are today in the US.
2. The portion of guns being used in homicides in Australia prior to the agreement (only 18% of homicides only in 1995 were with a firearm in Australia) is much, much lower than it is today in the US (79% of homicides involve a firearm in the US). So take the same portion of guns away in the US and you should logically expect an even more drastic drop.
Let me know what you need me to google for you next. You really need to stop repeating whatever you read on Facebook without confirming it's actually true first, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Lmao okay what is the implication then if the homicide rate DIDNT go down but the rate of homicides committed with a firearm DID go down after gun control. Cmon man you’re sooooo close. Look at the thread you’re commenting in, look what I wrote at the top of this fucking thread lol
Also the record can show that I don’t really give a shit if a bunch of gang bangers in Memphis or Chicago want to blow each other away. They can have at it. I see absolutely no reason that I should give up my constitutional right to bear arms for a bunch of thugs that would rob me blind if they had the chance. I don’t really give a shit if it makes us look bad compared to France. Fuck France.
Craw_DaddyLmao okay what is the implication then if the homicide rate DIDNT go down but the rate of homicides committed with a firearm DID go down after gun control. Cmon man you’re sooooo close. Look at the thread you’re commenting in, look what I wrote at the top of this fucking thread lol
The implication is that a lot of firearm homicides were likely prevented while the others remained stable? There was not more homicides from other weapons, it remained stable from the previous years. You didn't even look at the study, did you? Too many words for you I guess.
Look at 1992-2002 for LHS, all the values are close to the mean, it's a low standard deviation, from a statistical perspective it's about as stable as it gets across the entire dataset. And LHS was not on a sustained downward trend either prior to 1992:
The one argument you could make just by looking at the graph here is that RHS was already on a slight downward trend since 1986 (yeah I'm helping you out because you're struggling pretty hard here). To that I'll counter by saying that the trend accelerated following 1996 with the two largest drops registered post-1988. I'd also point you to the other study I previously linked that determined the odds of the drop in mass shootings being due to chance and not the agreement at 1 in 200,000.
Nothing is ever 100% in the world of stats, but based on the data available here, seems pretty likely that the agreement prevented homicides rather than transferred them to another weapon as you suggested.
Additionally, the reason the significant RHS drop didn't impact the overall homicide rate that much like you said is simply because firearm homicides were only a fraction of overall homicides in Australia at the time (only 18%).
Do the same math in the US where firearm homicides account for 79% of all homicides and you're likely to get a more significant overall drop here.
Lastly, Australia had a much smaller problem then that the US does today. Our rate today is 3 times what Australia's rate was in 1990, and that's after years of riding the global downward trend too. That would also contribute to expecting proportionally more lives saved by doing the same thing in the US.
And as a side-note, although you traded horses many times since making your original 'argument' that gun ownership prevents homicides (lol), it is disproved by this use case too, just in case you still had doubts.
Craw_DaddyAlso the record can show that I don’t really give a shit if a bunch of gang bangers in Memphis or Chicago want to blow each other away. They can have at it. I see absolutely no reason that I should give up my constitutional right to bear arms for a bunch of thugs that would rob me blind if they had the chance. I don’t really give a shit if it makes us look bad compared to France. Fuck France.
Sadly it's not just gang bangers dying from firearms, but you know that, you don't give a fuck about innocent bystanders, victims, or kids in schools either.
That last sentence is pretty telling of your mindset. It's not about comparing ourselves to France (you could have picked any other western country btw, they're all much safer than the US overall), it's about being able to take some perspective and learn from what works/doesn't work elsewhere to try and improve things here.
But at least I'll give you credit for being honest for the first time in this thread, this isn't about gun regulation not working (because again all the data shows the overwhelming odds that it actually works), you simply don't think preventing those deaths is worth losing your 'constitutional right'. That's fine, you also have a constitution right to be an asshole who likes things that go pew-pew, no need to make up bs arguments, just be honest about it.
Monsieur_PatateSadly it's not just gang bangers dying from firearms, but you know that, you don't give a fuck about innocent bystanders, victims, or kids in schools either.
That last sentence is pretty telling of your mindset. It's not about comparing ourselves to France (you could have picked any other western country btw, they're all much safer than the US overall), it's about being able to take some perspective and learn from what works/doesn't work elsewhere to try and improve things here.
But at least I'll give you credit for being honest for the first time in this thread, this isn't about gun regulation not working (because again all the data shows the overwhelming odds that it actually works), you simply don't think preventing those deaths is worth losing your 'constitutional right'. That's fine, you also have a constitution right to be an asshole who likes things that go pew-pew, no need to make up bs arguments, just be honest about it.
Yeah I’m honest unlike you. Go read some more vox articles idiot. Gun control didn’t work in Australia and France can suck my balls
