It doesn't, but it interests me.Vegosiux said:snip
Lets say that no prison could hold him. What would you have his punishment be? What if the punishment for breaking out was more jail-time?
It doesn't, but it interests me.Vegosiux said:snip
I'd likely lock him up with someone asking obnoxious questions in order to force people to answer what they want to hear.Moderated said:It doesn't, but it interests me.Vegosiux said:snip
Lets say that no prison could hold him. What would you have his punishment be? What if the punishment for breaking out was more jail-time?
That was not I, I don't generally compare two cities. You can compare the same place over time(like the UK's murder rate climbing unaffected by stringent gun control laws, or similar occurances in US cities that have banned hand-guns). And also, a large number of relatively similar data points can help adjust for uncontrolled variables. That's the whole point behind many psychological and sociological surveys that use random sampling, a large enough number of data points shows a trend despite uncontrolled variables.BiscuitTrouser said:I imagined you would respond this way. At what point CAN we compare? Whats the arbitrary line of "similar enough" after which a comparison is possible between two distinct geographical places. You claim cities with stricter gun control have higher claim earlier yes (unless that wasnt you in which case forgive me). Can we even compare two american cities? Can we compare the two towns near my home town about 30 mins away? When is different too different for a comparison. Surely no conclusion can be drawn at all about guns being good/bad if such comparisons are impossible.spartan231490 said:What are you trying to say? There is no point comparing UK to US, not only are they so culturally different, but 2 data points is not enough to draw a conclusion. When I said UK murder rate was higher, I was comparing it to the UK before the laws restricting guns were put into place there, not to the US. That was very clear.
Can we even do that? The economy has got a LOT worse with unemployment up in England over that time period. Surely you can agree that the UK is bound to see an increase in crime over this period reletively speaking due to differing socio economic circumstances. Also population spread can change, benefits can be cut or changed to improve/worsen peoples living standards. Also being brutally honest you need to check HOW these people died. We have a GIGANTIC murder spike in 2003 due to a terrorist attack and a psychopathic doctor taking over 1/3 of all murders for that ENTIRE YEAR. When statistics can be changed so violently like that by situations obviously outside the control of guns (Who just randomly shoots their doctor or shoots a bomb to disarm it?) can we even trust that all those murders were preventable by guns?spartan231490 said:That was not I, I don't generally compare two cities. You can compare the same place over time(like the UK's murder rate climbing unaffected by stringent gun control laws, or similar occurances in US cities that have banned hand-guns). And also, a large number of relatively similar data points can help adjust for uncontrolled variables. That's the whole point behind many psychological and sociological surveys that use random sampling, a large enough number of data points shows a trend despite uncontrolled variables.