Author Topic: Another Interstate sniper on the loose (Read 6666 times)

Mini D · « **Reply #60 on:** December 04, 2003, 11:42:08 AM »

He said homocide rate beet1e. rate. per. In England the rate isn't nearly as important since you guys have banned growth.

MiniD

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #61 on:** December 04, 2003, 11:46:26 AM »

Kirin
Do you really think Criminals will be stopped from having guns by more gun laws or a guns ban?

I hope you are not implying gun owners IE gun nuts go out on rampages often?

This guy prolly did not own the guns he used legally

lazs2 · « **Reply #62 on:** December 04, 2003, 11:55:30 AM »

semantics beetle... and misdirection on your part... the rate is going down... that is what I said and there is no other way to interpret the data. your rate is going up. even tho you are insular and on an island with passports and the whole works. Per capita is the only way to compare countries with such large differences in population.

lazs

Torque · « **Reply #63 on:** December 04, 2003, 12:05:08 PM »

A total of 149 homicides reported in 2002 in Canada were committed with firearms, 22 fewer than in 2001. This total represented a rate of 0.47 for every 100,000 people, the lowest since 1966.

Hey i didn't even use the race card, shall we drop it lower?.

beet1e · « **Reply #64 on:** December 04, 2003, 12:05:17 PM »

Lazs - you actually said

Quote

we have 34 states, and growing, with right to carry laws and homicide and crime continue to go down.

Elsewhere you mentioned per capita crime rates, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt just this once.

Out of interest, by what percentage has the US population increased since 1998? No way to know how much your per capita crime rate has decreased without knowing that.

Maybe I should do my part to "cut crime", and start a few babies.

:p

Nashwan · « **Reply #65 on:** December 04, 2003, 12:11:49 PM »

Quote

semantics beetle... and misdirection on your part... the rate is going down... that is what I said and there is no other way to interpret the data.

The rate isn't going down. It went down until 2000, rose in 2001, and stayed the same in 2002. So the current trend is either static or upwards. It certainly isn't falling.

Mini D · « **Reply #66 on:** December 04, 2003, 12:13:31 PM »

It's kinda funny the way you throw out stats then completely ignore them beet1e. One thing you seem to be overlooking in regards to rate thing has nothing to do with population, but handgun ownership. It's a bit odd that ownership of handguns has gone up drastically during those times despite handgun murders not going up. The correlation being.... ?

MiniD

lazs2 · « **Reply #67 on:** December 04, 2003, 12:16:20 PM »

yes... the rate is going down... there are about the same number of homicides but the population is growing.

rate is the only way to compare.

torque... we are talking about homicide rates... it matters not how the homicide was committed. your homicide rate is about exactly the same as ours for whites. you have less firearms homicides (per capita). you can relax in the knowledge that your white people are killing each other at the same rate as ours but with more politically correct weapons.

lazs

Nashwan · « **Reply #68 on:** December 04, 2003, 12:57:38 PM »

Quote

it matters not how the homicide was committed. your homicide rate is about exactly the same as ours for whites.

Lazs, it's simply not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The FBI figures show 5536 murders in 2002 were white, 5579 black, the rest unkown.

The US has a white population of approx 224 million, according to the CIA world factbook (2003 figure, which if population has grown will redue the rate, as the offence figures are for 2002)

That equals a white murder rate of about 2.48 per 100,000 population, assuming all the unkown offenders were black (not exactly likely)

Assuming the same black/white proportion existed between known and unkown offenders (which is probably about right), the US murder rate by whites is about 3.2 per 100,000

The Canadian murder rate is about 1.8 per 100,000, for all ethnic groups.

gofaster · « **Reply #69 on:** December 04, 2003, 01:03:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
gofaster
Do you really think Criminals will be stopped from having guns by more gun laws or a guns ban?

No.

Dowding · « **Reply #70 on:** December 04, 2003, 01:06:14 PM »

It's ironic that although Britain may be a tiny little island, the guy with the biggest ego in town, from the biggest country in town personifies the 'island mentality' almost perfectly.

Where is Dixon, CA anyway? Is it near New Jersey?

lazs2 · « **Reply #71 on:** December 04, 2003, 01:16:28 PM »

nash... The white murder rate here is less than 2.5 per hundred thousand. your murder rate is about 1.8... I don't know what your white homicide rate is but it's the vast majority I would think... anyway you cut it... it's not much of a difference. this doesn't even take into acount the lower population density of canada. In any case.... the difference between 2.5 and 1.8 isnt enough to get all excited about and certainly not enough to start taking away peoples rights or giving the government more power... the fact is also that our rate is going down...

dowding... Dixon is in California. I believe I mentioned that?

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #72 on:** December 04, 2003, 01:18:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
It's kinda funny the way you throw out stats then completely ignore them beet1e. One thing you seem to be overlooking in regards to rate thing has nothing to do with population, but handgun ownership. It's a bit odd that ownership of handguns has gone up drastically during those times despite handgun murders not going up. The correlation being.... ?

MiniD, the number of handguns owned has limited impact. That's because a guy who owns three guns is not going to be able to use them all at once, and for the same reason a guy who owns six guns is no more of a risk factor than the first guy who owns three.

You're starting to sound like Mr. Toad and his "deaths per gun" stat. Distributing a further 100,000,000 guns around the US population might make the "deaths per gun stat" look better, but it won't reduce crime.

As for the correlation you seek - increased gun ownership - most of America's 200,000,000 guns are never used, but probably remain in their boxes along with the receipt of purchase. If every single one of those 200m guns was used for practise shooting, there would have to be the equivalent of a gun range on every city block everywhere in the US. It would be interesting to reconcile sales of ammunition, and apportion this figure against the 200m guns (or however many it is) and work out the weekly ammo issue per gun. I think that would bear out what I say about most guns never being used.

As for why gun ownership soared in recent years - Sept.11,2001 is the answer. Many folks rushed out to buy a gun to deal with the perceived threat of Al Qa'eda in the aftermath of the tragedy of that day. Money down the drain. AQ does not make house calls, and you can't take a gun with you into the cabin of an airliner to guard against AQ presence.

Dowding · « **Reply #73 on:** December 04, 2003, 01:21:17 PM »

Heh. Bait withdrawn.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #74 on:** December 04, 2003, 01:21:39 PM »

Gofaster.
Then you are not pro gun controll? Or do you want to see your fellow citizens at the mercy of armed criminals, unarmed themselves, waiting for the police to come?