They had 7 times the amount of deaths per 100k than those countries how did lockdown
They did this to 'save' their economy... which is the opposite of what happened. They've had a 1.2% shrinkage.
So, they failed on both accounts
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
They did this to 'save' their economy... which is the opposite of what happened. They've had a 1.2% shrinkage.
So, they failed on both accounts
So you know what I decided to accept this challenge because I figured who knows it's a challenge.
Immediately the first source I found hammers a hole in ]our original claim (I'm assuming based on a gun deaths report) being used to make claims about mid western places being more dangerous due to gun violence. Turns out the numbers being reported are as I just said gun deaths not gun violence
What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2021 than in any other year on record, according to the latest available statistics from the CDC.
www.pewresearch.org
You know the really fun fact?
There are no stats on the stated reasons for the gun deaths beyond suicide vs killing.
So can I prove my argument about deaths by being shot during muggings vs being shot for trespassing?
No.
Does my logic hold up more soundly that a far more dense population with less gun violence per population is probably more dangerous than a far less dense population with more gun violence per head? Yes. Because it's about the area it's happening in.
If Cletus shoots some-one on his far and it's normally him and his wife living there with no-one else for a mile it's a rate of 1 in 2 . If in that same mile there's 100 shootings in the same time but a population of 1000 it's a 10% rate.
This is how stats are easily misleading.
Would you rather live in the 1 mile area where there was 1 shooting in a year or 100 shootings happen in a year?
Your logic as stated there is wrong, unless you can provide a substantial, justifying explanation under the clause "it's about the area it's happening in".
The problem with homicide is being killed. At a basic level, the chance of being murdered most simply equates to the homicides per head population in that region. Therefore, areas with fewer homicides per head population are safer - in terms of homicide at least. (They might not feel safer, however - but that's an issue with perception of crime rather than crime itself).
Put it this way from your example: Cletus and his wife are the only people within a mile. If one person a year dies in that region, it will become depopulated with both Cletus and his wife dead within 2 years. However, it would take ten years to depopulate the area with 1000 people who are dying at 100 a year.
Except my main point was about the misleading nature of stats as "Gun Crim per 1000 head" is a very misleading ways to measure stuff and so even if Cletus shot a guy out of anger would matter when in the same 1 mile area in a city there ere 100 people who shot others out of anger. That's to population density in an area it would still mean you were more likely to run into such an incident
Just because the river has more water doesn't mean you fear getting wet from it more than a downpour of rain.
Real world example near where I live
We've had more crim per head here than where I work. (3 car thefts, and arson and multiple cases of shoplifting)
The area I work in has had 15 prostitution busts, 5 drugs busts, 5 breaking and entering thefts and 3 cases of hit and run. But because there's some massive tower block flats round that area there the population density is far greater. Doesn't mean anyone at work is willing to risk parking their car anywhere other than where they know there are at least CCTV camera.
Crime per head isn't an accurate measure of how safe and area is, crime per area is.
Before I get the argument it's not, generally this is how most companies work out insurance, not per head but risk based on the number and value of incidents in a given area to give it a risk rating. This is why for example in the UK there's probably more crashes per head in the Scottish highlands but it's lower rated than London where there's far more regular crashes
Just because there's more people who could die doesn't change the fact the number of events in an area is greater.
Statistically, your argument remains bunk.
What you are possibly trying to argue here is factoring in the nature of the crime. So, hypothetically, in rural areas you get shot for trespassing on people's land and in urban areas someone randomly shoots you in a mugging. Thus the rural area is safer, assuming you don't trespass (or carry out whatever other thing causes someone to shoot you). Although I'm not sure why I'm trying to explain your argument for you.
If we're talking about crime against a person and their property, then per head is better. Like, for instance, burglary. In square mile A, there is one house and one burglary a year. In square mile B, there are 100 houses and ten random burglaries a year.
So where do you think is the place where you are more likely to be burgled? Come on man - this is basic stuff.
This sort of principle exists in many other forms. Is smoking tobacco safer than heroin? A lot more people die of smoking-related conditions than heroin-related conditions. But you clearly are much safer smoking tobacco than shooting up heroin.
This example does not illustrate what you think it does. It could be referring back to the initial point - what is the context in which crime victimisation occurs? It could also be viewed just as an issue with measurement and granularity. If the crime is measured in an area, there may still be variation within that area. For instance, we're talking about urban / rural, but fairly obviously there's a vast difference in crime rates between leafy, affluent suburbs and inner city slums.
There's actually a point there. Suicide by firearm gets deliberately added to the mix to muddy the waters by the anti-gun lobby despite that suicide and homicide are distinct and separate phenomenon with entirely different causative factors, on the vague and ridiculous notion suicide is also a crime.
Granted it's not the point as-presented (seriously Dwarvenhobble, HINT), but still...
Sweden was in the pool!
That's not the argument he's making though, is it? He's specifically referencing "Cletus" shooting another person for rural killings compared to urban killings.
Well, let's check our homework, shall we?
Reads like the argument being made there is anti-gun people decontextualize and gloss over causative factors in gun deaths -- whether that's accidental, suicide, justifiable homicide (primarily in this circumstance, self-defense), or murder -- to misrepresent the actual data. This is particularly noticeable in the case of the rural/urban divide, because rural areas have fewer deaths but higher death rates on account of lower population densities than urban areas.
Yet, we're to accept one statistic instead of the other depending on which is most amenable to the anti-gun position, and just ignore pesky little considerations like cognitive dissonance. Suicide just so happens to be another of those little pesky considerations we're to presumptively ignore. Because it's about "firearm deaths", not "firearm homicides", "firearm-involved crime", or "firearm murders"...until it isn't, depending on whatever's most favorable to anti-gun people's arguments at that particular moment. Or, when anti-gun people remember suicide is also a crime, which happily gets used to inflate those "firearm-related crime" numbers regardless of context or potentially different causative factors.
What's the difference in suicide rates between rural and urban areas again, by the way?
But really, what it's really about is doing anything and everything in one's power to distract from the single biggest global correlative to and indicator of violent crime, firearm-related crime, and even firearm homicide: Gini coefficient. That's why, once again, anti-gun people love to compare the United States to exclusively western liberal democracies, opposed to basically anywhere else on the planet.
Except that's working on the idea of the burglary being statistically as likely to happen each year.
In a rural area that would generally be stolen farm equipment from a farm. Yes not great but less breaking into the house itself to steal valuable and more stealing from out buildings etc etc.
But even so 10 in the same area suggests a larger pattern happening in said area. This is why statistics are important to understand in context.
If I said 1 immigrant from the middle east out of 1 in an area killed a person but only 10 Americans in an area of 100 killed people does that mean the middle eastern immigrants are more dangerous than the regular Americans, or does it mean the statistical analysis model breaks down due to the samples and doesn't give a realistic view of the actual risk.
Again the rain and the river.
Or another analogy, would you rather be 1 person having 1 dodgeball thrown at you or among 10 people in the same space but 5 being thrown at you as a group?
lets break it down further with the dodgeball analogy. Assuming each throw is equally probably of hitting you in each case with a 50% change then vs 1 throw
so a 50% chance to get hit right?
So would you rather than the 1 shot of dodging it or the 5 shots of dodging it even with the potential for others to be about and get hit instead?
A high crime density area as in more crimes in an area happening.
If it's a Tombola stall with equal probability and and 1 in 5 chance of winning if I take 1 ticking it's 1/5 chance if I play just twice then it's a 9/25 chance of winning which is converted to equivalent fractions means it's more likely than 5 in 25 which would be the 1 in 5 chance of winning normally. Now simply apply that the a consistent chance of a burglary being happened as each house is an independent entity in this case so the probability isn't suddenly shared.
That's more due to a lot of other factors specifically the risk factor per use.
To apply it back to the example at hand it would be like arguing that the probability of a burglary occurring is higher on one area than another because the per head number is higher when again that doesn't represent the situation fully
Yes and one between open areas of nothing with a few ranchers and even non slum dense urban areas.
H
Does it actually matter, with how the anti-gun lobby counts "gun deaths"? (No, it does not.)
I followed the news rather closely during 2020. I do not recall a time when any politician used the economy as an argument to keep things open. What they did however do was to compensate plenty of businesses that needed saving since they had a lot less revenue.
But I could be wrong, so: source, please?
Last edited:
lets break it down further with the dodgeball analogy. Assuming each throw is equally probably of hitting you in each case with a 50% change then vs 1 throw
so a 50% chance to get hit right?
So would you rather than the 1 shot of dodging it or the 5 shots of dodging it even with the potential for others to be about and get hit instead?[/quote]
Okay. Let's take a look at that mathematically. I'm a bit rusty, but I think this is how it works:
Example 1:
You are targetted automatically and the chance of not being hit is 0.5. So the chance of not being hit is 50%.
Example 2:
Assuming random targetting, the chance that you are not targetted from amongst the ten is 0.9 from each throw, which occurs five times. So the chance that no-one targets you is 0.9^5, which is, roughly by my mental calculation, around 0.6. This is already looking better than the 0.5 above, however, we haven't even factored in the 50% hit chance!
It breaks down (I used a calculator here):
Not targetted: 0.59
Targetted once: 0.33
Targetted twice: 0.07
Targetted three times: 0.01
Targetted four times: insignificant <0.01
Targetted five times: insignificant <0.01
So your chance of not being hit is 0.59 + (0.33 * 0.5) + (0.07 * 0.5^2) + (insignificant) = ~77% (back to approximate). Which is, I think you'll agree, much better than 50%. The trade-off, of course, is a likelihood of being hit more than once that is in the region of 2%.
So yeah, stats and probabilities, eh? It really helps to know your stuff.
Maths 2
Okay, at least you got the maths mostly right here. The problem is that the example does not match the situation.
So the more burglaries there are, the chance of being burgled correspondingly increases, yes. But what you're omitting is the comparison with the other region, which has fewer burlgaries but a higher burglary:house ratio. In your "two-ticket" example, the burglar to house ratio is 2:5. So let's imagine another region with one burglary and two houses: the probability of being burgled is 50%, compared to 36% when there are two burglars and five houses. So you're better off in the lower burglaries per capita area than the lower absolute number of burglaries area.
Well have fun doing the same thing over and again, and expecting different results next time.
What same things?
I don't live in the USA, and I'm satisfied with how things are going in terms of gun control in mine. What you guys want to do with gun ownership is your business, just whatever you do keep it to yourselves and stop flogging your bullshit ideologies to other countries.
Oh yeah, I know. That's why I said it. And this is not an attack on you. I used to believe the same stereotypes as well
Here's the thing. How did these stereotypes start? Someone (Reagan) trying to create a narrative against African Americans
All of the other stuff you stated is a retroactive justification that is trying to excuse Reagan's racism
Also the likelyhood (as these are shootings) that you will be a secondary hit as can happen in dodgeball sometimes too........... Which would mean even not targeted you might get hit hence the probability doesn't drop by anywhere near as much as you think lol and that's also accounting for deliberate targeting vs random chance of it happening independently lol
Last edited:
Except you're forgetting one thing. This is based on 1 years stats. (which is the gun violence numbers) thus using said numbers means a place could go 5 years with no incident and the 1 year it happened suddenly it's gone from a super safe place to live to one of the most dangerous.
This is why and how stats are easily misleading.