Alright, death rates to death rates. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's 2012 numbers, China has a per capita murder rate comparable to that of France, Sweden, and Australia. The United States' per capita murder rate is nearly five times theirs, comparable to Cuba, Belarus, and Thailand. The total number of murders committed in the US was higher than in China in 2012 despite our having like a quarter their population.DjinnFor said:Claimed it "was a dangerous nation"? That's so broad you could attach any meaning to that sentence, which is why you can bring completely irrelevant things in like the dispositions of random subgroups (in your case, lunatics in America compared to fine, upstanding Chinese citizens) and how that might factor in to how "dangerous" a nation is.rutger5000 said:But that's not really the topic I was discussing. Someone else claimed America was a dangerous nation due to its gun laws. Someone replied to that saying that that was flawed logic as that would make China a dangerous nation as most people study Kung fu there.
What they actually said was, they were worried that coming to America would increase their likelihood of being killed because of gun laws. Which is an invalid argument if (say for example), statistically, they aren't any more likely to be killed. Or, it could be an unsound argument, like if the gun laws don't actually make the country more dangerous to live in than it would be otherwise.
The argument was basically "I'm scared of guns, they could hurt people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to America". Which is equivalent to "I'm scared of fighting, it hurts people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to China". Using vague terms like "dangerous" in place of factual claims like "more likely to get hurt or die" is disingenuous and adds nothing to the discussion.
Which is irrelevant, and the argument was absurd anyhow. You can say that they shouldn't be considered as dangerous as people armed with firearms all you want; the only relevant concern is whether they are actually as dangerous as people armed with firearms.rutger5000 said:I replied to that statement by trying to explain why people trained in martial arts shouldn't be considered to be as dangerous as people armed with fire-arms.
What I do know is that comparing apples to oranges is meaningless. At least compare criminals to criminals, or death rates to death rates. Assuming that Chinese martial artists are less dangerous than American gun owners, especially when you imply that American gun owners are all dangerous lunatics or criminals, just assumes is true what you are supposed to prove.rutger5000 said:I know little of crime statistics, so I wouldn't be able to tell you where you're more likely to get mugged or killed. But do you really think that the Triad uses Kung Fu when they're mugging and killing people?
I'm not commenting on the reasons why this might be. But your rampant kung fu homicide crisis in China doesn't make much sense because a) come on srsly, and b) you are far more likely to be murdered in the US than China.
Edit: Also the list of the top 50 cities in the world by per capita murder rate is mostly Brazil, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, South Africa, and the US. Not a single European or Asian city makes the cut.