NationStates Jolt Archive

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hl-VtQImXVuBfNXTpNMvOgFOxj2wD942R8P82

Boy, 8, shot to death in Mass. gun show accident

WESTFIELD, Mass. (AP) — An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.

The boy lost control of the weapon while firing it Sunday at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, Police Lt. Lawrence Valliere said.

The boy was with a certified instructor and "was shooting the weapon down range when the force of the weapon made it travel up and back toward his head, where he suffered the injury," a police statement said. Police called it a "self-inflicted accidental shooting."
..
Although the death appears to be an accident, police and the Hampden district attorney's office were investigating, officials said.


What was the oft heard ageless adage...guns don't kill people, people do...?

The question is how does that maxim fit into this situation? On the other hand, will this accident have effects beyond making the 8 year old kid the laughing stock of know-it-all jaded FPS gamers?

EDIT:
For further discussion about age limits on gun use, see this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570420) thread.

If there were more guns, one could prevent this sad action !

Im sure the family thought it was doing something harmless as the behavior was done under the guidance of a licensed instructor. Its a sad accident nothing more nothing less, akin to a child drowning in a swimming class.

This is what happens when an 8-year old boy is faced with a submachine gun that puts out recoil that usually requires an adult to control.

They ought to take the kick of a gun into account if they ever allow children to test fire them. Single shots preferably, and a single burst fire if you must. But nothing automatic unless we're talking a pod-mounted machine gun that won't recoil back on the operator's head.

Who the hell gives an eight year old an uzi, even if he is being accompanied by an adult?

Giving a kid a gun. How can anyone think it's not a bad idea?

Who the hell gives an eight year old an uzi, even if he is being accompanied by an adult?
Should it be illegal?

edit:
And where would you draw the line?

Just my opinion, but an 8 year old handling a gun, no less an Uzi doesn't sound like a good idea to me, and I'm pro-gun myself. I think the gun wasn't the problem, but the youth and inexperience of the child handling it.....

Who the hell gives a citizen of any age an uzi, even if he is being accompanied by another citizen?

Im sure the family thought it was doing something harmless as the behavior was done under the guidance of a licensed instructor. Its a sad accident nothing more nothing less, akin to a child drowning in a swimming class.

If that swim class was being held in the ocean with four foot waves and an undertow, yes.

I'm all for the little guy being able to fire a gun under adult supervision, and have no doubt that the family did nothing wrong...except for giving him an uzi. I mean, this is a powerful weapon that I've heard full grown adults discuss in regards to the kick it can produce.

Should it be illegal?

No, idiocy shouldn't be illegal. Just a shame when an 8 year old suffers for it.

to the edit/to actually answer your question:

I don't see why anyone needs a machine gun or sub machine gun. But then, it isn't really my place. I think there needs to be strict gun control laws (background checks, etc), and laws need to be better enforced than they are (I'm not against the idea of state run gun shops and nothing else, much like how some states run alcohol sales)...but regulation generally works better than outright bans.

No, idiocy shouldn't be illegal. Just a shame when an 8 year old suffers for it.
Ah, ok.

btw. What's your take on speed limits? :tongue:

Why do you need an uzi anyway?

Ah, ok.

btw. What's your take on speed limits? :tongue:

haha...get rid of them :)

but then, I may or may not have a lead foot.

:( :(

Why do you need an uzi anyway?

To become a Bond villians henchman.

It's a surprisingly popular career choice in the US and you have more chance at interview if you say you already have your own uzi but terrible marksmanship skills.

Come to think about it, maybe this kid was trying out for a henchman role at the gun expo and went a bit too far...

Who the hell gives a citizen of any age an uzi, even if he is being accompanied by another citizen?
^
This describes my viewpoint the best.

I'm not against people owning and using utility guns - hunting rifles & shotguns - and even accept recrational shooting to a degree, even though I'm sceptic towards storing handguns at private homes, but automatic weapons should be left for military or hollywood movies & games.

edit:
Of course there should also be an age limit for owning and using a personal firearm as an 8 year old, even 10-12 year old, won't necessarily understand the consequences of their actions.

..I'd probably put the age limit to 14-16. 12 with close adult supervision.

This isn't so much a debate on gun control as a debate on gun physics. If the kid was given a semi-automatic 9mm weapon as opposed to an Uzi, there wouldn't have been the recoil that killed him and nobody would even be posting on this thread.

^
This describes my viewpoint the best.

I'm not against people owning and using utility guns - hunting rifles & shotguns - and even accept recrational shooting to a degree, even though I'm sceptic towards storing handguns at private homes, but automatic weapons should be left for military or hollywood movies & games.


I have the same feelings. I never understood why one can buy AK47's, M16's, or Uzi's in some countries.

Where will it stop? One could start buying nukes, why not?

Im sure the family thought it was doing something harmless as the behavior was done under the guidance of a licensed instructor. Its a sad accident nothing more nothing less, akin to a child drowning in a swimming class.

What a load of crap. Since when were swimming pools designed for no other purpose than inflicting hopefully fatal wounds?

You do the Second Amendment no favours with that kind of comparison...

What a load of crap. Since when were swimming pools designed for no other purpose than inflicting hopefully fatal wounds?

You do the Second Amendment no favours with that kind of comparison...

They teach kids how to use bows, and I'll be damned if there's any outcry from Bow Control Advocates, lemme tell ya...

Just my opinion, but an 8 year old handling a gun, no less an Uzi doesn't sound like a good idea to me, and I'm pro-gun myself. I think the gun wasn't the problem, but the youth and inexperience of the child handling it.....

Not to mention the instructor!

Not to mention the instructor!

Overestimating an 8-year old's ability to handle recoil from an Uzi would do that, yes.

This isn't so much a debate on gun control as a debate on gun physics. If the kid was given a semi-automatic 9mm weapon as opposed to an Uzi, there wouldn't have been the recoil that killed him and nobody would even be posting on this thread.
It's more an issue of age. An 8 year old might simply be so excited as to point the gun in the wrong direction and fire the gun.

In this case the kid most certainly didn't understand how to properly handle that weapon: If it was simply an issue of physics, instead of lacking understanding or panicking due to age, he would have stopped firing before the gun goes wildly off control.

They teach kids how to use bows, and I'll be damned if there's any outcry from Bow Control Advocates, lemme tell ya...
Well, back here high powered bows are not freely available. :tongue:

edit: Not that 8 year old would be strong enough to cock a bow strong enough to kill someone...at least accidentally ;)

You wouldn't give an 8 year old the wheel of a racing car, would you?

Same with a SMG. One should understand this is an inherently dangerous machine, and requires more responsibility, skill, and strength than possible at this age.

I'll teach my children how to use nukes. If you start soon, then they'll know how and when to use it.

I'll teach my children how to use nukes. If you start soon, then they'll know how and when to use it.

Slippery Slope, False Dilemma, and a bunch of other fallacies there.

What was the oft heard ageless adage...guns don't kill people, people do...?

The question is how does that maxim fit into this situation?

Well, I don't see how it wouldn't. After all, your very own title was boy shoots himself, not boy suddenly attacked by angry gun.

well i'm very pro-gun myself, but letting an 8-year-old fire an uzi is riddiculous, but i think a good soulution would be to start gun education very young and have compulsary seminars in school, regardless of the parents (or childs) veiw. just to educate them

outlawing guns is out of the question, because if you outlaw guns; only outlwas will have guns

Slippery Slope, False Dilemma, and a bunch of other fallacies there.

Anything is good, to keep your Uzi's on the shelves, no?

Well, I don't see how it wouldn't. After all, your very own title was boy shoots himself, not boy suddenly attacked by angry gun.

And there's a huge difference between recoil from a submachine gun slipping the muzzle towards a kid's head, and the kid pointing the gun at himself before pulling the trigger.

Anything is good, to keep your Uzi's on the shelves, no?
There is no apostrophe in Uzis.

Well, I don't see how it wouldn't. After all, your very own title was boy shoots himself, not boy suddenly attacked by angry gun.

Oh, in that case, we can allow cocaine and heroine as well. Those things need a human action as well before the harm can occur.

There is no apostrophe in Uzis.

But, but, but I like apostrophes !

Oh, in that case, we can allow cocaine and heroine as well. Those things need a human action as well before the harm can occur.

And knives.

I guess they had a blast then.

And there's a huge difference between recoil from a submachine gun slipping the muzzle towards a kid's head, and the kid pointing the gun at himself before pulling the trigger.
There is, but both cases, you kill yourself, just unwillingly vs. willingly.

If you try to drive a group /b/ rally car and, as expected, crash fatally in a few minutes, then it's you who killed yourself, not the car.

Well, I don't see how it wouldn't. After all, your very own title was boy shoots himself, not boy suddenly attacked by angry gun.
Well, isn't the part in bold actually an accurate description of the events? :p

Oh, in that case, we can allow cocaine and heroine as well. Those things need a human action as well before the harm can occur.

Erm. What exactly does drug legalization have to do with whether or not 'guns kill people?' I'm racking my brain for a reasonable connection here with anything I said and frankly, it's not there. I'm sure you think you have a good reason for this bit of mindless snark, but I'm here to tell you it's not.

There is, but both cases, you kill yourself, just unwillingly vs. willingly.

If you try to drive a group /b/ rally car and, as expected, crash fatally in a few minutes, then it's you who killed yourself, not the car.

If you're driving for group /b/, it wouldn't be a rally car. It'd be a party van and it would kill you when it explodes.

:tongue:

Slippery Slope, False Dilemma, and a bunch of other fallacies there.

Nope - a slipery slope would require that the person arguing it had suggested that allowing guns WOULD allow nukes.

What the poster did - whether deliberately or not - was reductio ad absurdum, and is logically sound.

Nope - a slipery slope would require that the person arguing it had suggested that allowing guns WOULD allow nukes.

What the poster did - whether deliberately or not - was reductio ad absurdum, and is logically sound.

And using reductio ad absurdums tend to have the same argumentative merit as using Godwin's Law to declare a victory.

And using reductio ad absurdums tend to have the same argumentative merit as using Godwin's Law to declare a victory.

I think you're confusing reductio ad absurdum with an 'appeal to ridicule'.

Logically speaking, in order to deflect the reductio ad absurdum, all you had to be able to do was show that the conclusion was acceptable (and thus, logically sound). The form of the reductio ad absurdum would then have logically supported your side of the argument.

And that's why it is logically sound.

The fact that you feel 'defeated' by it, shows that your argument is spurious.

As such - the reductio ad absurdum argument has all the 'merit' it needs.

I think you're confusing reductio ad absurdum with an 'appeal to ridicule'.

Logically speaking, in order to deflect the reductio ad absurdum, all you had to be able to do was show that the conclusion was acceptable (and thus, logically sound). The form of the reductio ad absurdum would then have logically supported your side of the argument.

And that's why it is logically sound.

The fact that you feel 'defeated' by it, shows that your argument is spurious.

As such - the reductio ad absurdum argument has all the 'merit' it needs.

The problem is then just about anything can be refuted by using a reductio ad absurdum and it is an appeal to riducule. It's ridiculous since nobody on the streets would have the access to nuclear materials as opposed to a handgun, and trying to compare nuclear weapons to personal firearms as if that were a valid point when discussing personal responsibility is rather disingenuous.

Reductio Ad Absurdums have Strawmen inherently built into them most of the time they are used.

If you're driving for group /b/, it wouldn't be a rally car. It'd be a party van and it would kill you when it explodes. It can be both.

/b/ = unmoderated and insane = Group B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_B) rally cars.

Huge power in a lightweight machine, high torque throughout the rev range, 0-60 in 2 seconds, all wheel drive, off-road abilities your BMW X5 doesn't dream of.
First it'll kill you, then explode and throw around your remains.
To be photographed and posted on /b/.

For the epic lulz.

Nope - a slipery slope would require that the person arguing it had suggested that allowing guns WOULD allow nukes.

What the poster did - whether deliberately or not - was reductio ad absurdum, and is logically sound.

It's not logically sound, because the original argument this was supposed to contradict did not suggest that anything, no matter how dangerous, is fine to own and use. Suggesting spuriously that nukes should be legal completely ignores this, and also reality. An AK-47 is quantitatively and qualitatively different from a nuclear weapon. An AK-47 can and is used for home defense or sport shooting. Nuclear weapons aren't, and can't be. Using an AK-47 in the US will not automatically result in deaths. Detonating a nuclear weapon in the US will. The underlying premises of the arguments in favor of guns were not understood, nor even addressed by Hairless Kitten, instead taking us this same tired and absurd blatherings about making nukes and heroin legal.

It would have been a logically sound reductio if the poster or posters had in fact stated the only criteria in favor of gun ownership and those criteria could easily and without modification be applied to nuke ownership. They hadn't, and even if they had (thus the reductio is logically sound), it is still a wrong comparison for the reasons mentioned in the last paragraph. And its only use seems to be obfuscating debate and casting the opponent(s) as person(s) in favor of everyone owning nukes and heroin in every schoolyard. I note that HK hasn't actually replied meaningfully to me or others.

The problem is then just about anything can be refuted by using a reductio ad absurdum and it is an appeal to riducule. It's ridiculous since nobody on the streets would have the access to nuclear materials as opposed to a handgun, and trying to compare nuclear weapons to personal firearms as if that were a valid point when discussing personal responsibility is rather disingenuous.

Reductio Ad Absurdums have Strawmen inherently built into them most of the time they are used.


The nuke is just used as a metaphor.

You can go to your local supermarket, buy some regular stuff and build awesome bombs with it.

Maybe I should teach my kid how to do it, no?

- You don't need a brain to carry a gun. -

The problem is then just about anything can be refuted by using a reductio ad absurdum and it is an appeal to riducule. It's ridiculous since nobody on the streets would have the access to nuclear materials as opposed to a handgun, and trying to compare nuclear weapons to personal firearms as if that were a valid point when discussing personal responsibility is rather disingenuous.

Reductio Ad Absurdums have Strawmen inherently built into them most of the time they are used.

Not at all. For example - the argument over Death Penalties often comes down to something along the lines of: 'executing someone that is innocent is wrong'. The reductio ad absurdum argument would be 'then punishing in ANY way... someone who is innocent, is also wrong'.

The reductio is acceptable, the conclusion is true. The reductio shows, logically, the inherent truth of the argument. It shows that that argument isn't actually a logical argument against the penalty, but against the mechanism determining guilt.

Thus, the reductio ad absurdum is a valid, and useful tool.

There's no inherent strawman there - although the reductio ad absurdum can lead to a strawman fallacy... but that's not an argument against the reductio ad absurdum, itself.

- You don't need a brain to carry a gun. -
No, but if you have one and want to keep it, you will.

It's not logically sound, because the original argument this was supposed to contradict did not suggest that anything, no matter how dangerous, is fine to own and use. Suggesting spuriously that nukes should be legal completely ignores this, and also reality. An AK-47 is quantitatively and qualitatively different from a nuclear weapon. An AK-47 can and is used for home defense or sport shooting. Nuclear weapons aren't, and can't be. Using an AK-47 in the US will not automatically result in deaths. Detonating a nuclear weapon in the US will. The underlying premises of the arguments in favor of guns were not understood, nor even addressed by Hairless Kitten, instead taking us this same tired and absurd blatherings about making nukes and heroin legal.

It would have been a logically sound reductio if the poster or posters had in fact stated the only criteria in favor of gun ownership and those criteria could easily and without modification be applied to nuke ownership. They hadn't, and even if they had (thus the reductio is logically sound), it is still a wrong comparison for the reasons mentioned in the last paragraph. And its only use seems to be obfuscating debate and casting the opponent(s) as person(s) in favor of everyone owning nukes and heroin in every schoolyard. I note that HK hasn't actually replied meaningfully to me or others.

Flawed on so many levels - but I'll just hit two:

1) Detonating a nuclear device in several places would have no effect on the population - because there is no one there. The same is true for the AK47. Both weapons are 'fatal' ONLY when there is someone in a position to be harmed.

Rather humourously, what you just posted is - in effect - a reductio ad absurdum argument, but one that can be clearly shown to be based on a faulty assumption. And when the assumption is fixed (i.e. a victim is in the 'line of fire', so to speak) the reductio actually shows that the AK47 and nuke are intrinsically the same, in terms of the value you were arguing.

2) The argument wasn't really that nukes should be legal... but that children should be taught to use them, in case they get their hands on them later in life... which is basically the argument being used for giving a kid an Uzi to shoot.

Guns aren't killing people, some say. Ok. But they don't prevent crime either.

USA is one of the most criminal countries in the Western world, despite the ultra liberal gun dogmas

In Europe, accidents with guns and children occur much less. Why?

In Europe, less school shootings occur, which is just coincidence of course.

And still those naïve Americans, who are still living in the West of 1800, think they need a gun in their house. Why? Afraid for Native Americans?

Guns are a kind of a substitution for a penis. It’s not acceptable to play with your penis all the time. And I wouldn’t be surprised that the size of the penis is correlated with the size or amount of guns in your house. The smaller your penis, the more guns in the house.

Guns aren't killing people, some say. Ok. But they don't prevent crime either.
They do. If one compares gun-legal states with prohibitionist ones, the ones where guns are banned have higher violent crime rates.


USA is one of the most criminal countries in the Western world, despite the ultra liberal gun dogmas
In Europe, accidents with guns and children occur much less. Why?
In Iraq, you can get shot for being caught with a gun.
But outside Iraq, accidents with guns and children occur much less. Why?


US is not Europe. It has a different culture and a different mentality.

No, but if you have one and want to keep it, you will.

I have a brain. I'm having it for decades. And I will have it for more decades.
And so are most Europeans.

And most of them have no gun in their house.

Maybe, our criminals are nicer?

Guns are a kind of a substitution for a penis. It’s not acceptable to play with your penis all the time. And I wouldn’t be surprised that the size of the penis is correlated with the size or amount of guns in your house. The smaller your penis, the more guns in the house.
This is completely wrong. I have a penis a bit over 8", thanks to the practice of hitting it with a tool and lifting weights with it.

Yet I have, among other things, a long-range military sniper rifle and a combat shotgun.

They do. If one compares gun-legal states with prohibitionist ones, the ones where guns are banned have higher violent crime rates.



In Iraq, you can get shot for being caught with a gun.
But outside Iraq, accidents with guns and children occur much less. Why?


US is not Europe. It has a different culture and a different mentality.


Yep, we are not that afraid, maybe.

This is completely wrong. I have a penis a bit over 8", thanks to the practice of hitting it with a tool and lifting weights with it.


How long was it before that?

There is no apostrophe in Uzis.
I don't know, if the gun can kill the boy, then it must have some possessive ability.

Seriously, when I was 8, my friends and I were out in the woods shooting squirrels with our .22s. Eight is not too young to have a firearm. The lack of adult judgment that translated into a small(?) child firing a full-auto weapon is what was to blame in this case.

Who lets a child, regardless of adult supervision, use a loaded weapon? For fuck's sake.

Who lets a child, regardless of adult supervision, use a loaded weapon? For fuck's sake.

Remember that this is America we are talking about, Yuki-Chan. They love their guns.

Yep, we are not that afraid, maybe.
Or you have fewer non-assimilated blacks and illegal immigrants.


How long was it before that?
About 7 1/4" after self-measurement correction adjustment. But I've been practicing penis Quigong for a relatively short time yet, mostly for half a year when I was serving at sea (trust me, lifting weights with your cock is one of the least boring things you can do there).

Why do you need an uzi anyway?

Some people seriously think of it as a hunting weapon. Some people apparently don't know that other human beings are not supposed to be prey species.

About 7 1/4" after self-measurement correction adjustment. But I've been practicing penis Quigong for a relatively short time yet, mostly for half a year when I was serving at sea (trust me, lifting weights with your cock is one of the least boring things you can do there).


hahaha...this says it all why you need them big guns....obviously not confident with the size. lifting weights with your cock??? whut the fuck!!! I think maybe you should pick up a book instead :)

I have a brain. I'm having it for decades. And I will have it for more decades.
And so are most Europeans.

And most of them have no gun in their house.

Maybe, our criminals are nicer?

Lots of other demographic issues that affect Europe's crime rates.
1. less ethnic strife not so much because its the mecca of people getting along western European nations tend to have less minorities. and this is with the little quirks like the french counting Germans as minorities where as in the US we jsut count Germans as part of the 61% white majority.
2. Europe population is older. Old people commit less crimes.
3. Immigration Europe countries on average tend to have less immigrants. Sort of ties into 1 But immigrants and children of immigrants have a higher tendency to commit crimes even if they are of the same ethnic group.


you can prove this by looking at Switzerland. more guns per capita then the US but less crime then most European nations. Guns have no effect on murder rates or crime rates. The aforementioned three major differences do.

In Iraq, you can get shot for being caught with a gun.
But outside Iraq, accidents with guns and children occur much less. Why?
.

Are you seriuos with this question?? Why is there a lot of violence in Iraq these days? hmmm....I think I remember something about an invasion....hmm who was that again...some country came along....bombed the shit out of that country....went in with their military forces....oh yes!!! USA thats who....and yes...thats the country where everyone needs a gun in their home as well. How stupid can you be if you dont think theres a relation with gun control laws and all the episodes with children and guns goin on in your country. What good can a gun do? Yes I know it can protect you, problem is making the guns legal makes it easier for the criminals to get them too, so now u got even more to worry about. Well....I'm happy I live far far away from your country of terror and poor economy :) good luck

Guns have no effect on murder rates or crime rates.
Show me a school massacre executed by a machete and I'll agree.

I formerly thought guns are non issue in regards of violence...but having our country suffer 2 school shootings in a year I'm beginning to doubt that. :(

Both shooters practically refused to go through compulsory military training meaning they probably had wrong attitude towards guns in the first place.

edit:
As a statistic, in my country the guns per capita is among the highest, top 3-4, in the world. The shootings on the other hand have almost always been related to other crimes (or drunken* {accidental} gun waving :p).

*Most, I'd say 99+%, drunken crimes are commited by traditional weapons like knives. We're big on drunken knife killings. :\

hahaha...this says it all why you need them big guns....obviously not confident with the size. Of course I'm confident. You don't want that inside you unless you're a woman.


lifting weights with your cock??? whut the fuck!!! I think maybe you should pick up a book instead :)
It's called Penis Quigong, and is an ancient Chinese martial art school, broken apart from Shaolin Kung-Fu, which says that if you train all your four limbs, why not all five.

Penis Quigong not only makes the penis much stronger and stiffer, it also prolongs your life, ensures your sexual prowess well into the age of 70s, and keeps the kidneys working better.

Flawed on so many levels - but I'll just hit two:

1) Detonating a nuclear device in several places would have no effect on the population - because there is no one there.

Did you honestly just say that? I guess we're ignoring the reality of radiation and fallout, in your little fantasy world.

The same is true for the AK47. Both weapons are 'fatal' ONLY when there is someone in a position to be harmed.

A nuclear weapon is fatal to all living beings within a certain radius. It is completely indiscriminate. There's a reason they call it a Weapon of Mass Destruction, unlike an AK. You're acting like they're the same thing, when they are so obviously not. They aren't the same, they are qualitatively and quantifiably different, as I've already said.

There is a way to safely fire an AK-47 and not harm anyone.

There is no way to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil and not harm anyone. That might be why deliberately nuking US soil is considered an attack on the United States, whereas shooting bullets into the ground is not.

But go on, and pretend they're even in the same ballpark. It's amusing.


And when the assumption is fixed (i.e. a victim is in the 'line of fire', so to speak) the reductio actually shows that the AK47 and nuke are intrinsically the same, in terms of the value you were arguing.

lol

2) The argument wasn't really that nukes should be legal... but that children should be taught to use them, in case they get their hands on them later in life... which is basically the argument being used for giving a kid an Uzi to shoot.

It is rather likely that someone in the US encounters a firearm and thus should know how to use it and how not to. In the case of home defense, one needs to know this.

It is unlikely in the extreme that anyone encounters a nuclear weapon, and if one did, one would NOT need to know how to set the bloody thing off.

Honestly, this whole "GUNS = NUKES" argument is such complete horseshit.

Honestly, this whole "GUNS = NUKES" argument is such complete horseshit.
Not really, if everyone had a nuke the world would be much peaceful place.

If you carry a gun for self defence, why not carry the ultimate self defence weapon - Nuke kept the world peace through MAD, why wouldn't it work in a smaller scale? ;)

Show me a school massacre executed by a machete and I'll agree.

I formerly thought guns are non issue in regards of violence...but having our country suffer 2 school shootings in a year I'm beginning to doubt that. :(

Both shooters practically refused to go through compulsory military training meaning they probably had wrong attitude towards guns in the first place.

edit:
As a statistic, in my country the guns per capita is among the highest, top 3-4, in the world. The shootings on the other hand have almost always been related to other crimes (or drunken gun waving :p).

Rwanda had several school machete massacres. In fact the vast majority of the murders were done by Machete during the Rwandan Massacres.

Lots of other demographic issues that affect Europe's crime rates.
1. less ethnic strife not so much because its the mecca of people getting along western European nations tend to have less minorities. and this is with the little quirks like the french counting Germans as minorities where as in the US we jsut count Germans as part of the 61% white majority.
2. Europe population is older. Old people commit less crimes.
3. Immigration Europe countries on average tend to have less immigrants. Sort of ties into 1 But immigrants and children of immigrants have a higher tendency to commit crimes even if they are of the same ethnic group.


you can prove this by looking at Switzerland. more guns per capita then the US but less crime then most European nations. Guns have no effect on murder rates or crime rates. The aforementioned three major differences do.

I dont agree with you completely on this, but you do make some good points. USA is a nation built up on immigration so of course u do have a higher rate of immigrants there. Then again what kind of immigrants are you accepting? I dont know the answer to this, but I know that here in Norway you need a relative living here or you have to come from a serious situation (like war) to get accepted. Staying with that, imagine how the situation would develop with american gun-laws in effect here. We would have people from wars in bosnia, somalia and other horrible wars having easy access to guns. Thats sounds like a nightmare to me.
Saying that immigrants commit more crimes is just stupid. Maybe they do but its probably not so much being of other race or nationality as much as it is because of their financial status. Poor people commit more crimes. That I can agree with. Thats where your government gotta clean up. You have a too wealthy upper-class. You need to divide the riches (I already hear someone screaming communist at me). That way you get fewer poor people and that way I'm pretty sure you will get fewer criminals too. This will decrease the importance of having guns and again decrease the "accidents" you get all the time.

No reason to ban any firearms over some idiot child. One death, and next thing you know, the left-wingers'll go ballistic (no pun intended THANK YOU VERY MUCH! jk). Think of the positive- one less mouth to feed.

Rwanda had several school machete massacres. In fact the vast majority of the murders were done by Machete during the Rwandan Massacres.
Were they commited by peers?

I was about that age when I first shot a gun. It just happened to be an accident I guess, quite like crashing when you are being taught to drive.

No reason to ban any firearms over some idiot child. One death, and next thing you know, the left-wingers'll go ballistic (no pun intended THANK YOU VERY MUCH! jk). Think of the positive- one less mouth to feed.

You're right, it's the other 30,000+ gun deaths per year in the US that would bother me.

Not really, if everyone had a nuke the world would be much peaceful place.

Ah yes, now you are addressing the strawman argument that if everyone had a gun, the world would be a peaceful place. Now I'm sure you've actually seen that argument somewhere, but I didn't make it, so you're just roasting strawmen for no good reason.

If you carry a gun for self defence, why not carry the ultimate self defence weapon - Nuke kept the world peace through MAD, why wouldn't it work in a smaller scale? ;)

Yes exactly! Nukes kept the world peace!

I mean except for Indonesian National Revolution, the Paraguayan Civil War, the Vietnamese War of Independence, the Indo-Pakistani War of '47, the Palestinian Civil War, the '48 Arab-Israeli War, the Costa Rican Civil War, the conflict in Myanmar, the Malayan Emergency, the Korean War, the invasion of Tibet, the Tunisian War of Independence, the Mau Mau Uprising, the Algerian War of Independence, the First Sudanese Civil War, the Hungarian Uprising, the Cuban Revolution, the Vietnam War, the Laotian civil War, the Cambodian Civil War, the Congo Crisis, the Guatemalan Civil War, the Bay of Pigs, Eritrean War of Independence, Portuguese Colonial War, Angolan War of Independence, Guinea-Bissau War of Independence, Mozambican War of Independence, Invasion of Goa, Sino-Indian War, Yemen Civil War, the Rhodesian Bush War, the Indo-Pakistani War of 65, the Six Day War, the Nigerian Civil War, the Islamic Insurgency in the Phillipines, the Bangladesh Liberation War, the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, the Yom Kippur War, the Ehtiopian, Angolan, Lebanese, Mozambican, Salvadoran and Sri Lankan Civil Wars, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, the Falklands, the 'Gulf War', the Iraq War, the US invasion of Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, the Rwandan Civil WAr, the Croation War of Independence, the Sierra Leone Civil War, civil wars Yemen, Burundi, Afghanistan, Tajikstan, Djibouti, Algeria, Liberia....

;)

Lots of other demographic issues that affect Europe's crime rates.
1. less ethnic strife not so much because its the mecca of people getting along western European nations tend to have less minorities. and this is with the little quirks like the french counting Germans as minorities where as in the US we jsut count Germans as part of the 61% white majority.
2. Europe population is older. Old people commit less crimes.
3. Immigration Europe countries on average tend to have less immigrants. Sort of ties into 1 But immigrants and children of immigrants have a higher tendency to commit crimes even if they are of the same ethnic group.


you can prove this by looking at Switzerland. more guns per capita then the US but less crime then most European nations. Guns have no effect on murder rates or crime rates. The aforementioned three major differences do.

So what about the UK, which has negative gun law, large immigrant population, a history of immigration that stretches thousands of years, and an age demographic about the same as the US?

The differences are - no guns, and a culture that doesn't glorify firearms.

I dont agree with you completely on this, but you do make some good points. USA is a nation built up on immigration so of course u do have a higher rate of immigrants there. Then again what kind of immigrants are you accepting? I dont know the answer to this, but I know that here in Norway you need a relative living here or you have to come from a serious situation (like war) to get accepted. Staying with that, imagine how the situation would develop with american gun-laws in effect here. We would have people from wars in bosnia, somalia and other horrible wars having easy access to guns. Thats sounds like a nightmare to me.
Saying that immigrants commit more crimes is just stupid. Maybe they do but its probably not so much being of other race or nationality as much as it is because of their financial status. Poor people commit more crimes. That I can agree with. Thats where your government gotta clean up. You have a too wealthy upper-class. You need to divide the riches (I already hear someone screaming communist at me). That way you get fewer poor people and that way I'm pretty sure you will get fewer criminals too. This will decrease the importance of having guns and again decrease the "accidents" you get all the time.

we accept a great many poor immigrants from Latin America.Many of these countries are in what would be classified a civil war except the fact that normally the side against the US sells cocaine to fund their rebellion (such as FARC) so the US able to classify it as a police action by the state.

furthermore According to "Understanding why crime fell in the 1990's: four factors that explain it and six that do not" journal of economic perspectives 18 no 1 (2004) pp. 163-90 By Steven D. Levitt.
Statistically Income does not effect violent crime such as homicide, rape, and assault. It does however effect crimes such as theft. you can also Read Freakonomics by Stephen J Dubner page 109.

Besides I hope not with the economic situation as is western Europe and the US are about to be on equal footing with Africa.

Ah yes, now you are addressing the strawman argument that if everyone had a gun, the world would be a peaceful place. Now I'm sure you've actually seen that argument somewhere, but I didn't make it, so you're just roasting strawmen for no good reason.
Actually I was implying towards a nuclear holocaust wiping the humans off the planet...

...but roasting a strawman sounds nice too. One question though, is it edible? :confused:

<snip>
;)
Minor quibbles...You're missing the BIG picture: Nukes are cool...no wait..I mean, we're still here so nukes kept the world together, see! :tongue:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hl-VtQImXVuBfNXTpNMvOgFOxj2wD942R8P82

Boy, 8, shot to death in Mass. gun show accident

WESTFIELD, Mass. (AP) — An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.

The boy lost control of the weapon while firing it Sunday at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, Police Lt. Lawrence Valliere said.

The boy was with a certified instructor and "was shooting the weapon down range when the force of the weapon made it travel up and back toward his head, where he suffered the injury," a police statement said. Police called it a "self-inflicted accidental shooting."
..
Although the death appears to be an accident, police and the Hampden district attorney's office were investigating, officials said.


What was the oft heard ageless adage...guns don't kill people, people do...?

The question is how does that maxim fit into this situation? On the other hand, will this accident have effects beyond making the 8 year old kid the laughing stock of know-it-all jaded FPS gamers?No 8 year old child should be able to use a weapon. Professionaly supervised, or not. "Supervising" doesn't do much to stop a bullet.

So what about the UK, which has negative gun law, large immigrant population, a history of immigration that stretches thousands of years, and an age demographic about the same as the US?
The differences are - no guns, and a culture that doesn't glorify firearms.
So people just kill each other with knives. At the same rate.

Did you honestly just say that? I guess we're ignoring the reality of radiation and fallout, in your little fantasy world.


Not at all. I just spent enough time researching the matter to know what the actual dangers of nuclear technology are, rather than just regurgitating nuke-hysteria.


A nuclear weapon is fatal to all living beings within a certain radius.


As is an AK47.


It is completely indiscriminate.


As is an AK47.


There's a reason they call it a Weapon of Mass Destruction, unlike an AK. You're acting like they're the same thing, when they are so obviously not. They aren't the same, they are qualitatively and quantifiably different, as I've already said.


Qualitatively, both are harmless devices until you position them where they can hurt people, and then activate them.


There is a way to safely fire an AK-47 and not harm anyone.

There is no way to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil and not harm anyone.


That's an argument you really want to make?

(Hint: if you make it - you're going to look dumb).


That might be why deliberately nuking US soil is considered an attack on the United States, whereas shooting bullets into the ground is not.

But go on, and pretend they're even in the same ballpark. It's amusing.


Not a ballpark - that's not the connection. See - what you're doing THERE, is an appeal to ridicule, and that is a logical fallacy.


It is rather likely that someone in the US encounters a firearm and thus should know how to use it and how not to. In the case of home defense, one needs to know this.

It is unlikely in the extreme that anyone encounters a nuclear weapon, and if one did, one would NOT need to know how to set the bloody thing off.


Anyone that encounters a gun or a nuke has equal need to know how the device works - to ensure they don't accidentally hurt someone, apart from ANY other concern.


Honestly, this whole "GUNS = NUKES" argument is such complete horseshit.

Which is probably why you're the only one to have said that.

So people just kill each other with knives. At the same rate.

No they don't. Recent UK crime statistic showed far less fatalities from gun wounds (obviously), and less fatalities from knife wounds, too.

Non-fatal knife injuries were higher, proportionally. But there's the advantage written large - knives, even if used as often as guns - are less often fatal.

You wouldn't give an 8 year old the wheel of a racing car, would you?

Sure, why not?

It was a horrible accident caused by a dumbfuck who didn't stop to think that automatic weapons and young kids don't mix. But of course the gun control lobby will use it as an example of why guns need to be banned. Here's a thought: if gun ownership is so damn bad, why do massacres only seem to happen in GUN-FREE ZONES? Were people little ducks on sticks, they'd call the areas shooting galleries.

So what about the UK, which has negative gun law, large immigrant population, a history of immigration that stretches thousands of years, and an age demographic about the same as the US?

The differences are - no guns, and a culture that doesn't glorify firearms.

First the demographics are not the same. UK 85% white British with 5% as white other.
US white is 68%. more then a 20% difference in minority populations.

Age.
0-14 in UK 16.9% In USA 20.1%
15-64 in UK 67.1% in USA 67.1%
65- + in UK 16% in USA 12.7%
the issue with this is that the middle group is too large. but looking at the older and younger group we can guess the trend in the US that there are more 15- 30 years old then 30-64. where as in the UK 15-30 years old would be about even. the difference clearly reflects a trend in the US population being younger.


UK net migration rate 2.17 per 1,000
US net migration rate 3.05 per 1,000

a 50% higher rate of immigration in the US.

The UK and the US have totally different demographics.
All info from CIA world fact book.

Just my opinion, but an 8 year old handling a gun, no less an Uzi doesn't sound like a good idea to me, and I'm pro-gun myself. I think the gun wasn't the problem, but the youth and inexperience of the child handling it.....

Agreed, this is my stance also.

No they don't. Recent UK crime statistic showed far less fatalities from gun wounds (obviously), and less fatalities from knife wounds, too.

Non-fatal knife injuries were higher, proportionally. But there's the advantage written large - knives, even if used as often as guns - are less often fatal.

that's an issue of skill. with a gun a wound is often fatal or a miss. Its a lot harder to miss with a knife even if you are not using the knife properly. a person who has seen one too many rap videos and shoots with his gun side ways is lucky to have a 10% hit ratio.

Just my opinion, but an 8 year old handling a gun, no less an Uzi doesn't sound like a good idea to me, and I'm pro-gun myself. I think the gun wasn't the problem, but the youth and inexperience of the child handling it.....

to be honest a kid that young gun training should focus on pellet guns and BB guns. not live rounds. Maybe a 22 cal long rifle (though i find 12 to be a more comfortable age)

Agreed, this is my stance also.

Third'd

I believe guns are logical and appropriate tools within certain situations, however no one in their right mind should ever give a 8 year old or any child a weapon (no pun intended) of this caliber.

No they don't. Recent UK crime statistic showed far less fatalities from gun wounds (obviously), and less fatalities from knife wounds, too.
I'm not entirely sure in these statistics, as they are underreported.
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html


Non-fatal knife injuries were higher, proportionally. But there's the advantage written large - knives, even if used as often as guns - are less often fatal.
But they're used in UK way more often than guns in US.

Assault rate: 2.3 times higher in UK
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims

Burglary rate: Twice higher in UK
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

Total crimes: Higher in UK
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

And most importantly, perceived safety of walking in the dark:
Way safer in US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_per_of_saf_wal_in_dar-crime-perception-safety-walking-dark

But of course the gun control lobby will use it as an example of why guns need to be banned.

Do you know what a strawman is, perchance?

Edit: Most gun control advocates do not want to ban guns outright, just make it harder for criminals, the insane, children, and other groups that can do nothing but harm with guns. We do not advocate taking all guns away.

First the demographics are not the same. UK 85% white British with 5% as white other.
US white is 68%. more then a 20% difference in minority populations.

Age.
0-14 in UK 16.9% In USA 20.1%
15-64 in UK 67.1% in USA 67.1%
65- + in UK 16% in USA 12.7%
the issue with this is that the middle group is too large. but looking at the older and younger group we can guess the trend in the US that there are more 15- 30 years old then 30-64. where as in the UK 15-30 years old would be about even. the difference clearly reflects a trend in the US population being younger.


UK net migration rate 2.17 per 1,000
US net migration rate 3.05 per 1,000

a 50% higher rate of immigration in the US.

The UK and the US have totally different demographics.
All info from CIA world fact book.

1) I said age demographics - so your figures about race are irrelevent - but DO support what I said about the UK being an immigrant nation.

2) The CIA factbook, of course, doesn't allow for the fact that the 'white' population is not a homogenous whole. The CIA factbook includes Vikings, Normans, Romans, etc as part of the 'white' population - effectively, calling a whole load of the immigrants into the UK non-immigrant, just because they're now established.

3) Onto the age demographics. You claim that Europe has an 'older' population - and yet your own source shows that the main demographic that would be owning guns - is identical in both places.

4) You came up with several conclusions that doesn't logically follow. You say that because the US has a higher percentage of children... the 15-30 demographic must be proportionately larger. There's no evidence for that... it could be as simple as people in the UK living longer, which would make the 60+ figure a higher proportion. It could be as simple as the fact that America had a pronounced 'Baby Boom', and thus, will have a higher infant population about once every generation.

5) Also worth pointing out - the immigration data. The UK immigration rate... about .2%. The US immigration rate... about .3%. Not as big a difference as you pretend.

I'm not entirely sure in these statistics, as they are underreported.
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html



But they're used in UK way more often than guns in US.

Assault rate: 2.3 times higher in UK
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims

Burglary rate: Twice higher in UK
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

Total crimes: Higher in UK
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

And most importantly, perceived safety of walking in the dark:
Way safer in US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_per_of_saf_wal_in_dar-crime-perception-safety-walking-dark

The problem with the kind of statistics you just provided is that you are missing two key factors:

1) reporting rate - your own sources explain that the statistics are based on reports, not necessarily on crimes. Just from anecdotal evidence, people I met in the UK reported rape, as a rule - and people I've talked to in the US tend not to. What would just that TREND do to the statistics?

2) The laws are different. Someone having sex with an underage person in the US has a separate categorisation than it would in the UK. Surely, you can see how that would affect the 'violent crime' statistics heavily?
Unless there are actual LIKE-FOR-LIKE statistics, these kinds of numbers are relatively meaningless.


Also worthy of mention... your 'smoking gun' evidence is even more flawed than the rest. Interviewing CRIME VICTIMS about relative feelings of safety 'in the dark' is going to give non-representative results... obviously. Further - one shouldn't leap to conclusions. Given that things like school shootings tend to happen in daylight, and such crimes are far more prevalent in the US (just using that particular niche-crime as an example) surviving victims are unlikely to respond that they are less comfortable about walking in the dark.

You draw weak conclusions, from data that doesn't even begin to actually address the real issues.

that's an issue of skill. with a gun a wound is often fatal or a miss. Its a lot harder to miss with a knife even if you are not using the knife properly. a person who has seen one too many rap videos and shoots with his gun side ways is lucky to have a 10% hit ratio.

So... knife violence is less lethal than gun violence, proportionately... because people are more skilled with knives?

Seriously - if your best argument for why gun violence is so much more lethal is that people can't shoot worth shit, then you're actually making my case for me, here.

somting like that can only happen in USA of Finland as we know by now...eneugh said! Call it stereotyping...I call it FACT

Knives are clearly better than guns, because when I'm on the stabbing range with a certified instructor, there's no way I'm going to lose control of my knife and accidentally stab myself in the head.

Knives are clearly better than guns, because when I'm on the stabbing range with a certified instructor, there's no way I'm going to lose control of my knife and accidentally stab myself in the head.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d32_1188860523

Kent Reed was playing the part of Brutus, in a production of "Julius Caesar", in Aspen.

He was supposed to stab Caesar, but it was Brutus that accidentally ended up with a real knife wound.

As an actor, you could say Kent Reed is a cut above the rest after playing the sh More..arp, role of brutus in "Julius Caesar."

His theater company, Hudson Reed Ensemble, had been performing the play in Aspen.

Shakespeare intended for Brutus to stab Caesar.

But in front of their biggest house ever, Kent changed history

Kent says "it was the largest crowd we have ever had, about 100 people got to see me stab myself in the leg."

When he took the prop, a real switchblade knife, and accidentally stabbed himself in the leg.

1) I said age demographics - so your figures about race are irrelevent - but DO support what I said about the UK being an immigrant nation.

2) The CIA factbook, of course, doesn't allow for the fact that the 'white' population is not a homogenous whole. The CIA factbook includes Vikings, Normans, Romans, etc as part of the 'white' population - effectively, calling a whole load of the immigrants into the UK non-immigrant, just because they're now established.

you mean like white of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%. EEgad only 83% of the white population is English those damn Scottish and welsh mongrels make up too much of the rest. I am sure that's as much a big deal as southern US versus north eastern US.
besides Cultural similarity makes most of the western Europeans have little difficulty adapting to the UK if they already know English. And the EU inflates migration. a great many of the migrants are just coming to England to work for 5 years and then go home. though I imagine that bubble will deflate soon enough as I hear the Poles are starting to go back to Poland in mass.


3) Onto the age demographics. You claim that Europe has an 'older' population - and yet your own source shows that the main demographic that would be owning guns - is identical in both places.
you say the same basic thing twice in 4 so i just responded there.

4) You came up with several conclusions that doesn't logically follow. You say that because the US has a higher percentage of children... the 15-30 demographic must be proportionately larger. There's no evidence for that... it could be as simple as people in the UK living longer, which would make the 60+ figure a higher proportion. It could be as simple as the fact that America had a pronounced 'Baby Boom', and thus, will have a higher infant population about once every generation.
Fine lets put up a nice graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boom
notice the Echo boom peaked in 1989 which makes most of the children of baby boomers over 15. thank you by making find this Data I can conclude the the differences in 15-30 yr old in the Us is likely to be greater then the 3% for 0-14 yr olds. funny how it took your theory to prove me right. Also not that more children normally means more parent aged people.

5) Also worth pointing out - the immigration data. The UK immigration rate... about .2%. The US immigration rate... about .3%. Not as big a difference as you pretend.
yes Us immigration rate is 50% higher. and are more liberal immigration policy has been in place much longer. In fact our original majority the Brits is a pretty small minority.

The UK may be an immigrant country by European standards but not by American standards. Once you've had the British reduced to less then 10 % we will talk about calling you an immigrant nation.

somting like that can only happen in USA of Finland as we know by now...eneugh said! Call it stereotyping...I call it FACT

It's happened in Scotland as well.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d32_1188860523

Well, I can't argue with that.

Well, I can't argue with that.

I tried to find a person that accidentally stabbed himself in the head, but Google isn't aware of one. :(

So... knife violence is less lethal than gun violence, proportionately... because people are more skilled with knives?

Seriously - if your best argument for why gun violence is so much more lethal is that people can't shoot worth shit, then you're actually making my case for me, here.

no because it is easier to miss with a gun the miss with a knife.
guns have a higher minimal skill for use. things like range knowledge of how to hold a gun right play very importantly in if you can even inflict an injury. Where as an incorrectly held knife is still likely to cause a minor flesh wound during an assault and range is always small with a knife.
A miss results in no injuries so skews results of injuries leading to fatality ratios.

First the demographics are not the same. UK 85% white British with 5% as white other.
US white is 68%. more then a 20% difference in minority populations.

Age.
0-14 in UK 16.9% In USA 20.1%
15-64 in UK 67.1% in USA 67.1%
65- + in UK 16% in USA 12.7%
the issue with this is that the middle group is too large. but looking at the older and younger group we can guess the trend in the US that there are more 15- 30 years old then 30-64. where as in the UK 15-30 years old would be about even. the difference clearly reflects a trend in the US population being younger.


UK net migration rate 2.17 per 1,000
US net migration rate 3.05 per 1,000

a 50% higher rate of immigration in the US.

The UK and the US have totally different demographics.
All info from CIA world fact book.

What are you talking about? The CIA Factbook lists the US as being 79.96% white (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People).

Not to mention that the much higher % of blacks living in the US has much less to do with immigration and more to do with you guys bringing them over in the cargo compartments of ships if you catch my meaning.

Not to mention that the much higher % of blacks living in the US has much less to do with immigration and more to do with you guys bringing them over in the cargo compartments of ships if you catch my meaning.

A century or two of slavery involving kidnapping people of another culture and making them service us without pay and we're *never* allowed to live it down.

While I advocate gun rights, I also equally advocate gun responsibility. You can't have one without the other, and if a society forgoes the responsibility of guns, it should also forgo the rights.

A century or two of slavery involving kidnapping people of another culture and making them service us without pay and we're *never* allowed to live it down.

It's like banging your best friends sister. Sure it seems like a good idea at the time but the atmosphere is very uncomfortable for quite a while afterwards.

So people just kill each other with knives. At the same rate.

I remember a while ago, a guy went on a stabbing spree, and fair play to him, he had a good go at it, but he'd have got way more people if he'd had a gun.

Even when guns were legal here, people mostly just stabbed each other, but since we banned them, I'm pretty sure there've been no major instances of nutters going out and killing 20 random strangers (although, I realise now my random assertions are likely to be proved wrong within 5 minutes by people with evidence). That's why we banned guns. Not because it magically eliminates crime.

We probably have more assaults because of our stupid binge drinking culture (If I'm not making sense it's because I'm drunk, btw).

1) reporting rate - your own sources explain that the statistics are based on reports, not necessarily on crimes. Just from anecdotal evidence, people I met in the UK [...]
It's based on police reports. And assault is not rape. Unlike with rape, there's no stigma attached. Assault is reported.

And the fact is: people are assaulted in UK over twice more often than in US.

And a major reason is that the average lifetime of an assailant in US is much shortened, because the mugger is much more likely to get some lead.


Unless there are actual LIKE-FOR-LIKE statistics, these kinds of numbers are relatively meaningless.
But they are like-for-like. While overall crime rate in UK is just somewhat higher, violent crime rate is much higher.


Given that things like school shootings tend to happen in daylight, and such crimes are far more prevalent in the US (just using that particular niche-crime as an example) surviving victims are unlikely to respond that they are less comfortable about walking in the dark.
School shootings are extremely rare and but a negligible footnote in overall crime statistics. They are occasional insanity cases, not a representative part of the actual crime.

Actual crime rates are given above.

It's based on police reports. And assault is not rape. Unlike with rape, there's no stigma attached. Assault is reported.


It's based on data collected from people reporting crimes - which means the statistics do NOT account for unreported crime (I'd have thought that was obvious). Assaults are not always reported... and I'd be amazed to see you produce a set of evidence that thinks it otherwise.

So - if 95% of all crimes in the UK are reported, but only say... 66% of US crimes - what do you think the statistics would look like?


And the fact is: people are assaulted in UK over twice more often than in US.


No - the STATISTIC is that. We don't know what the 'fact' is, because none of the sources you presented can even pretend to give us that.

You say those rates show that there are more assaults in the UK - I say that people in the UK are just more likely to report crime.


And a major reason is that the average lifetime of an assailant in US is much shortened, because the mugger is much more likely to get some lead.


More of your spurious nonsense without even an atom of evidence.


But they are like-for-like. While overall crime rate in UK is just somewhat higher, violent crime rate is much higher.


No - they are NOT like-for-like. What counts as a 'crime' in one nation, doesn't count as a 'crime' (certainly not, a 'like' crime) in another nation. So the statistics are never more than a generalised wave in the direction of something.


School shootings are extremely rare and but a negligible footnote in overall crime statistics. They are occasional insanity cases, not a representative part of the actual crime.


School shootings are an example - and one that sits pretty prominently in the mind of Americans. What I'm pointing out is - that 'smoking gun' statisitc of yours can easily be explained by associating it with the proportionately higher daylight-crime proportion of the US.


Actual crime rates are given above.

What?

Okay, here's some more statistics from the same source:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

US murder rate is about 3 times higher than in the UK. I wonder if the assault rate is lower because fewer people survive. :P

A century or two of slavery involving kidnapping people of another culture and making them service us without pay and we're *never* allowed to live it down.That's not entirely true.
Most African slaves were willingly traded away by other Africans. The Europeans simply bought them. Didn't have to kidnap that many.
There was the occasional exception, but that accounts for a much smaller percentage than I originally thought.
Link. (http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm)

It's based on data collected from people reporting crimes - which means the statistics do NOT account for unreported crime (I'd have thought that was obvious). Assaults are not always reported... and I'd be amazed to see you produce a set of evidence that thinks it otherwise.

So - if 95% of all crimes in the UK are reported, but only say... 66% of US crimes - what do you think the statistics would look like?

That would take some proving, to show that reporting difference would account for what is claimed.



No - the STATISTIC is that. We don't know what the 'fact' is, because none of the sources you presented can even pretend to give us that.

You say those rates show that there are more assaults in the UK - I say that people in the UK are just more likely to report crime.

You'd have to prove that for it to be important to the discussion, otherwise, it's just a common "ignore the evidence (because I don't like it)" defense.



No - they are NOT like-for-like. What counts as a 'crime' in one nation, doesn't count as a 'crime' (certainly not, a 'like' crime) in another nation. So the statistics are never more than a generalised wave in the direction of something.

Given the shared legal history of the United States and the United Kingdom, I'd suspect that they are fairly closely related.



School shootings are an example - and one that sits pretty prominently in the mind of Americans. What I'm pointing out is - that 'smoking gun' statisitc of yours can easily be explained by associating it with the proportionately higher daylight-crime proportion of the US.

Is daylight crime proportionately higher in the US?

That's not entirely true.
Most African slaves were willingly traded away by other Africans. The Europeans simply bought them. Didn't have to kidnap that many.
There was the occasional exception, but that accounts for a much smaller percentage than I originally thought.
Link. (http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm)

Interesting.

*files that*

I guess the other problem with this kind of statistical comparison is that assault is defined differently in different places, and some things that are defined as assault in the UK may a separate offence in the US, and vice versa.

Also, I suppose it should be pointed out, in case anyone was holding opinions to the contrary, that Burglary is not a violent crime. Unless you count violence against houses.

While I advocate gun rights, I also equally advocate gun responsibility. You can't have one without the other, and if a society forgoes the responsibility of guns, it should also forgo the rights.
Whatever, you hate the 2nd Amendment and are thus an un-American commie.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hl-VtQImXVuBfNXTpNMvOgFOxj2wD942R8P82

Boy, 8, shot to death in Mass. gun show accident

WESTFIELD, Mass. (AP) — An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.

The boy lost control of the weapon while firing it Sunday at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, Police Lt. Lawrence Valliere said.

The boy was with a certified instructor and "was shooting the weapon down range when the force of the weapon made it travel up and back toward his head, where he suffered the injury," a police statement said. Police called it a "self-inflicted accidental shooting."
..
Although the death appears to be an accident, police and the Hampden district attorney's office were investigating, officials said.


What was the oft heard ageless adage...guns don't kill people, people do...?

The question is how does that maxim fit into this situation? On the other hand, will this accident have effects beyond making the 8 year old kid the laughing stock of know-it-all jaded FPS gamers?

EDIT:
For further discussion about age limits on gun use, see this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570420) thread.
Terrible.

Also, obviously, the kid could not control the gun and never should have had it. I don't know who I think is more responsible -- his parent for thinking it was a good idea to let him fire the gun, or the instructor, who was responsible for his safety while handling it.

So - if 95% of all crimes in the UK are reported, but only say... 66% of US crimes - what do you think the statistics would look like?
So - if 40% of all crimes in UK are reported, but 66% of US crimes - what do you think the statistics would look like?


No - the STATISTIC is that. We don't know what the 'fact' is, because none of the sources you presented can even pretend to give us that.
You say those rates show that there are more assaults in the UK - I say that people in the UK are just more likely to report crime.
The first link I've given was saying the exact opposite.

You got any evidence to prove what you're saying and disprove the official statistics?


No - they are NOT like-for-like. What counts as a 'crime' in one nation, doesn't count as a 'crime' (certainly not, a 'like' crime) in another nation.
Assault does. It's not like we're talking about different law systems, it's all English Law.


What I'm pointing out is - that 'smoking gun' statisitc of yours can easily be explained It can also be explained by Interwebs mingling the numbers as they are transferred. And it will also be wishful thinking.

Terrible.

Also, obviously, the kid could not control the gun and never should have had it. I don't know who I think is more responsible -- his parent for thinking it was a good idea to let him fire the gun, or the instructor, who was responsible for his safety while handling it.

I would say the instructor. he should've been standing behind the child with his hands also on the gun to help control it.

of course, more responsible does not mean fault.

What are you talking about? The CIA Factbook lists the US as being 79.96% white (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People).
That 79.96% includes the 15.1% of the population that's hispanic. If you subtract that the percentage of whites is only about 65%.

On the topic of the thread, what floored me is the kids father was an Emergency Room Doctor. If anybody should be away of the frequency and dangers of accidental shootings.....

That would take some proving, to show that reporting difference would account for what is claimed.

You'd have to prove that for it to be important to the discussion, otherwise, it's just a common "ignore the evidence (because I don't like it)" defense.

Given the shared legal history of the United States and the United Kingdom, I'd suspect that they are fairly closely related.

Is daylight crime proportionately higher in the US?

At least 3 of the sources Vault presented said that they presented 'reported' only statistics which may not accurately represent the actual incidence of crime. I suspect ALL had some sort of qualifier, somewhere.

And that's the thing - I don't have to prove anything about Vault's sources - I just have to show that they don't represent actual crime figures - which they, explicitly say is the case.

It's nothing to do with ignoring evidence I don't like, and everything to do with the fact that the statistics don't really show what Vault thinks they show.

What they SHOW, is how many of certain types of crime get reported.

That 79.96% includes the 15.1% of the population that's hispanic. If you subtract that the percentage of whites is only about 65%.

What's your point? The figure of whites for the UK includes all Europeans.

And that's the thing - I don't have to prove anything about Vault's sources - I just have to show that they don't represent actual crime figures - which they, explicitly say is the case.
This is a sufficient excuse to avoid admitting being proven wrong.


To claim anything more than not being proven wrong, however, you should give contradicting statistics which do "represent actual crime figures".
While they're lacking, the most veritable ones are to be taken into account, and so far it's the reported figures.

What's your point? The figure of whites for the UK includes all Europeans.*sigh* While the term hispanic in the US does include spanish and portuguese and their descendents the vast majority of US 'hispanics' are of mexican and south and latin american birth or descent. These 'hispanics' are more likely to be of significant indigenous heritage and are also signifacantly darker of complexion than european 'hispanics'.
The average US citizen acknowledges this difference and does not lump the two groups together, only census takers usually take that liberty.

Assault does. It's not like we're talking about different law systems, it's all English Law.


No - it all started in English law. I know little or nothing about that side of the law. I couldn't tell you the difference between grevious bodily harm, assault, and battery, under English law - but I know they're different entities.

I know even less about the US system.

Before you write them off as identical, can you SHOW that they are actually talking about the same things?


It can also be explained by Interwebs mingling the numbers as they are transferred. And it will also be wishful thinking.

Dude - it's not wishful thinking if your own source said it...

This is a sufficient excuse to avoid admitting being proven wrong.


To claim anything more than not being proven wrong, however, you should give contradicting statistics which do "represent actual crime figures".
While they're lacking, the most veritable ones are to be taken into account, and so far it's the reported figures.

I don't have to provide an excuse to avoid admitting being proved wrong.

The statistics you've provided discuss reports of crime. Nothing else.

You've provided NOTHING that actually addresses the actual incidence of crimes.

The onus is on you.

"...for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Tragic but true.

*sigh* While the term hispanic in the US does include spanish and portuguese and their descendents the vast majority of US 'hispanics' are of mexican and south and latin american birth or descent. These 'hispanics' are more likely to be of significant indigenous heritage and are also signifacantly darker of complexion than european 'hispanics'.
The average US citizen acknowledges this difference and does not lump the two groups together, only census takers usually take that liberty.

I thought cultures and not skin colours mattered?

In the UK we probably have just as little in common with Eastern Europeans as you do with strongly indigenous Hispanics, despite our skin having a similar hue.

That 79.96% includes the 15.1% of the population that's hispanic. If you subtract that the percentage of whites is only about 65%.

On the topic of the thread, what floored me is the kids father was an Emergency Room Doctor. If anybody should be away of the frequency and dangers of accidental shootings.....
Pardon -- but how are white Hispanics not white? That's like saying "Well, if you take away the percentage of white Germans, it's only 65%."

Did you honestly just say that? I guess we're ignoring the reality of radiation and fallout, in your little fantasy world.


Underground or underwater detonations in remote regions usually produce no casualties even with fallout. At least none governments are willing to talk about.

Lead pollution from bullets at firing ranges on the other hand, if left exposed and not cleaned up, can prove fatal to the local fauna or get into the local water table.


There is no way to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil and not harm anyone.

Underground detonations.


That might be why deliberately nuking US soil is considered an attack on the United States, whereas shooting bullets into the ground is not.

This is usually because they are expensive to acquire/build/maintain weapons and tend only to be found in government stockpiles. If a cruise missile from say, Russia, landed in US soil, it would be an attack, casualties or no casualties.

Pardon -- but how are white Hispanics not white? That's like saying "Well, if you take away the percentage of white Germans, it's only 65%."That's the point, they're not 'white hispanics', they're hispanic, the census bureau lumps them in with whites. This is in contradiction to what most Americans acknowledge, they don't consider Mexican Americans and other similar ethnicities to be 'white'. The percentage of 'Hispanics' in the US who consider thenselves of European descent (ie; spanish or portuguese) is negligable, the vast majority as I've said are of Mexican and other latin american descent. The US census bureau does not acknowlege the obvious difference that the man on the street does.

I thought cultures and not skin colours mattered?Hispanics from the Americas have a very different culture from European Hispanics. But skin color is a big issue with a lot of people and most Hispanics are considered 'people of color' in the US.

In the UK we probably have just as little in common with Eastern Europeans as you do with strongly indigenous Hispanics, despite our skin having a similar hue.Which is probably why I've heard young people around here utter the seemingly incogruous phrase 'he's not white, he's russian' when refering to one of the numuerous eastern european immigrants that inhabit our region.

That's the point, they're not 'white hispanics', they're hispanic, the census bureau lumps them in with whites. This is in contradiction to what most Americans acknowledge, they don't consider Mexican Americans and other similar ethnicities to be 'white'. The percentage of 'Hispanics' in the US who consider thenselves of European descent (ie; spanish or portuguese) is negligable, the vast majority as I've said are of Mexican and other latin american descent. The US census bureau does not acknowlege the obvious difference that the man on the street does.
Really.
Then the so-called average man on the street is showing his ignorance as well as bigotry. And when the majority of people believed the world was flat, it didn't make it correct.

Hispanics from the Americas have a very different culture from European Hispanics. But skin color is a big issue with a lot of people and most Hispanics are considered 'people of color' in the US.

Which is probably why I've heard young people around here utter the seemingly incogruous phrase 'he's not white, he's russian' when refering to one of the numuerous eastern european immigrants that inhabit our region.

So now you understand why I think the you're reach when you try to exclude Hispanics from the white count in the US when we don't exclude Europeans from the white count in the UK.

Culture has a much larger impact in dificulties with assimilation than skin colour.

Or you have fewer non-assimilated blacks and illegal immigrants.

WTF?

Actually scratch that. I don't want to know the motivation behind that comment.

we accept a great many poor immigrants from Latin America.Many of these countries are in what would be classified a civil war except the fact that normally the side against the US sells cocaine to fund their rebellion (such as FARC) so the US able to classify it as a police action by the state.

1. You are really big on racial stereotyping, aren't you? I've detected a notable pattern.

2. See my WTF comment above.


*sigh* While the term hispanic in the US does include spanish and portuguese and their descendents the vast majority of US 'hispanics' are of mexican and south and latin american birth or descent. These 'hispanics' are more likely to be of significant indigenous heritage and are also signifacantly darker of complexion than european 'hispanics'.
The average US citizen acknowledges this difference and does not lump the two groups together, only census takers usually take that liberty.

What exactly is "this difference" that is so obvious to the "average U.S. citizen"? And why should we care about it?

Really.
Then the so-called average man on the street is showing his ignorance as well as bigotry. And when the majority of people believed the world was flat, it didn't make it correct.Are you kidding me Kat? The Mexican's I know don't consider themselves white and consider it a slight to their growing political clout to be lumped in with whites for census purposes. In a perfect world we wouldn't care about differences in culture or skin color but it's still means something to alot of people. Why does the census bureau have seperate catagories for Blacks and Asian and lump hispanics in with whites? Either don't differentiate at all or acknowledge that this 15% of the poulation also has different values, culture and skin tone than the white majority.

It's turned into a discussion about a young kid shooting himself in the head with an Uzi to debating about whether Hispanics are caucasian or not. Good old General, it's like /b/ only low fat. :p

On the original topic, it's quite a tradegy. However, it really makes you question how sensible the instructors and organizers are letting a kid fire a fully automatic gun.

WTF?
What exactly is "this difference" that is so obvious to the "average U.S. citizen"?Well to be blunt and put it in the terminology of the average joe, 'Mexicans are brown not white'. And why should we care about it?Ya know, I don't really care. I was just pointing out why two other poster's figures for % of whites in the US population were off from each other and suddenly I'm being tapped to defend why Hispanics aren't white. My personal belief is we're all human period, if you want an 'interacial' relationship look outside your species.

Hispanics from the Americas have a very different culture from European Hispanics. But skin color is a big issue with a lot of people and most Hispanics are considered 'people of color' in the US.

Hispanic means you´re from Latin America. There are no European Hispanics. Get your facts rights if you´re going to talk about a certain demographic.

Well to be blunt and put it in the terminology of the average joe, 'Mexicans are brown not white'. Ya know, I don't really care. I was just pointing out why two other poster's figures for % of whites in the US population were off from each other and suddenly I'm being tapped to defend why Hispanics aren't white. My personal belief is we're all human period, if you want an 'interacial' relationship look outside your species.

Shows just how much you really know about other nationalities. There are blond haired, blue-eyed Mexicans with white skin, as starkly white, as that of some Americans. Example: my fiancé´s family, from Guadalajara, are white, with light hair and he has a few cousins that have blue eyes so... if that isn´t white, I don´t know what you´re trying to say.

Hispanic means you´re from Latin America. There are no European Hispanics. Get your facts rights if you´re going to talk about a certain demographic.

That's not entirely correct.

Hispanic means you´re from Latin America. There are no European Hispanics. Get your facts rights if you´re going to talk about a certain demographic.Funny, I always thought the Portuguese branch of my family was Hispanic...

Are you kidding me Kat? The Mexican's I know don't consider themselves white and consider it a slight to their growing political clout to be lumped in with whites for census purposes. In a perfect world we wouldn't care about differences in culture or skin color but it's still means something to alot of people. Why does the census bureau have seperate catagories for Blacks and Asian and lump hispanics in with whites? Either don't differentiate at all or acknowledge that this 15% of the poulation also has different values, culture and skin tone than the white majority.
Well, you're the one who's lumping all Hispanics into the not white box. You know, because all Hispanics are dark-colored. And they're all Mexican, too. And apparently the census bureau designates all Hispanics as white. And there isn't a separate category on the census forms, after all.

On the original topic, it's quite a tradegy. However, it really makes you question how sensible the instructors and organizers are letting a kid fire a fully automatic gun.

The organizers, to be fair, probably didn't know about this. The instructor on the other hand, was probably an idiot.

The organizers, to be fair, probably didn't know about this. The instructor on the other hand, was probably an idiot.

How one does not figure a child lacks the strength to press back against full automatic recoil is beyond me.

hmmm... natural selection.

Shows just how much you really know about other nationalities. There are blond haired, blue-eyed Mexicans with white skin, as starkly white, as that of some Americans. Example: my fiancé´s family, from Guadalajara, are white, with light hair and he has a few cousins that have blue eyes so... if that isn´t white, I don´t know what you´re trying to say.
Nanatsu, silly girl -- your blonde, blue-eyed relatives simply don't exist. And the census recognizes all Hispanics as white.

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf

hmmm... natural selection.

And it only took about 10 pages for that sorta comment.

Nanatsu, silly girl -- your blonde, blue-eyed relatives simply don't exist. And the census recognizes all Hispanics as white.

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf

State-sanctioned threadjacking. Mmm...

At least 3 of the sources Vault presented said that they presented 'reported' only statistics which may not accurately represent the actual incidence of crime. I suspect ALL had some sort of qualifier, somewhere.

And that's the thing - I don't have to prove anything about Vault's sources - I just have to show that they don't represent actual crime figures - which they, explicitly say is the case.

It's nothing to do with ignoring evidence I don't like, and everything to do with the fact that the statistics don't really show what Vault thinks they show.

What they SHOW, is how many of certain types of crime get reported.

What they also happen to show the is the single best representation of actual crime rates that is feasible, though. We have to work within information constraints in the real world, but that doesn't make that information useless or unacceptable for use. In absence of evidence to the contrary, we can act as if these data are representative.

Otherwise, we're screwed because we can't act because all information is, by its very nature, limited.

So, I maintain, unless you can provide us with evidence that reporting rates are significantly different between the US and UK, then we should not throw out the data.

Well, you're the one who's lumping all Hispanics into the not white box. You know, because all Hispanics are dark-colored. And they're all Mexican, too. And apparently the census bureau designates all Hispanics as white.Sheath your claws Kat, as I've said I was just making an observation, pointing out the reason for statistical differences when I got sidetracked into this. The census bureau does not neccesarily designate all hispanics as white these days, the term Latino is coming more into use and new surveys use this term and ask respondants if 'they associate themselves with this term', which BTW is the way all racial/ethnic questions are phrased on US cencus questionaires these days, you get to pick your own poison (I myself always choose other or refuse to respond to such questions). But the one survey I was refering to (Fartsniffages source, a cia survey) had no such designation and by it's own admission lumped 'hispanics' in with whites, this accounted for the statistical difference that Fartsniffage was giving Greed and Death grief about. Somehow my pointing this out got twisted into some commentary on the practice which it wasn't meant to be.

Funny, I always thought the Portuguese branch of my family was Hispanic...

considering she is from Spain I will take her word for it.

How one does not figure a child lacks the strength to press back against full automatic recoil is beyond me.

I haven't the faintest. But we are forgetting a few factors that may or may not have been at play.

Parental pressure is one possible explanation. Idiot parents pressuring the instructor to let their child try it. Or maybe just a newbie instructor with more eagerness than sense. Or maybe the kid annoyed the instructor to the point where he caved.

A lot of possible reasons, but nothing concrete to look at.

What they also happen to show the is the single best representation of actual crime rates that is feasible, though. We have to work within information constraints in the real world, but that doesn't make that information useless or unacceptable for use. In absence of evidence to the contrary, we can act as if these data are representative.


Bullshit. Mega-mega-mega bullshit. And you know it is, and you wouldn't accept the same data as anything more than what it is, in other circumstances.

What the data tells us is how many crimes are reported.

What the sources qualify that with, is a tacit admission that it represents ONLY reporting of crimes, not necessarily their commission.

In absence of data that links reporting levels directly and proportional to actual commission of crimes, ALL a source like that can EVER show - is how many get reported.


But, to humour you briefly, and explain WHY you know it's bullshit - if HAMAS claims that they've NEVER killed anyone... how many casualties do you think that accurately relates to?

If the KGB claimed that no one was ever imprisoned, harmed or killed, during more than a half a century... those being the 'reported' numbers, how accurately would you think it matched the actual bodycount?

Yes - I'm using extreme examples - but the point is blindingly obvious: statistics of how many times a thing is SAID to have happened, is a very, VERY poor indicator of it's actual occurance.


Otherwise, we're screwed because we can't act because all information is, by its very nature, limited.

So, I maintain, unless you can provide us with evidence that reporting rates are significantly different between the US and UK, then we should not throw out the data.

I agree. And, if the topic had been 'how often do crimes get REPORTED', this data would be extraordinarily useful. As it is, it's slightly more worthwhile than a fart in a hurricane.

I think it's fairly rational to assume that for violent crime, there wont be a very highly significant difference between reported and actual crime to the extent where it would skew the results to uselessness.

This is what happens when an 8-year old boy is faced with a submachine gun that puts out recoil that usually requires an adult to control.

They ought to take the kick of a gun into account if they ever allow children to test fire them. Single shots preferably, and a single burst fire if you must. But nothing automatic unless we're talking a pod-mounted machine gun that won't recoil back on the operator's head.

Yeah, seriously. This was extremely stupid on the part of the instructor. The instructor ought to be held liable for criminal negligence.

I haven't the faintest. But we are forgetting a few factors that may or may not have been at play.

Parental pressure is one possible explanation. Idiot parents pressuring the instructor to let their child try it. Or maybe just a newbie instructor with more eagerness than sense. Or maybe the kid annoyed the instructor to the point where he caved.

A lot of possible reasons, but nothing concrete to look at.I didn't even see anything confirming the fire rate of the weapon, nothing says it was firing auto. Concievably the weapon could have kicked back and he pulled the trigger again accidentally as it was pointing up at his head, but that's not really important. You don't let a child of that age fire a weapon like that without being absolutely sure they can control it. Any way you look at it the instructor screwed up there. The father was a doctor, an Emergency Room physican, that blew me away. I work in a hospital and most of the ED docs are pretty opinionated on guns. Once you see first hand what they do to a body and the tragedy and stupidity that leads to it you tend to sway torwards the more control side of gun issues.

Flawed on so many levels - but I'll just hit two:

1) Detonating a nuclear device in several places would have no effect on the population - because there is no one there. The same is true for the AK47. Both weapons are 'fatal' ONLY when there is someone in a position to be harmed.
'Cause, you know, there's no such thing as fallout, or dust, or climatalogical effects, or...

Oh, wait, I guess there is an effect.

Rather humourously, what you just posted is - in effect - a reductio ad absurdum argument, but one that can be clearly shown to be based on a faulty assumption. And when the assumption is fixed (i.e. a victim is in the 'line of fire', so to speak) the reductio actually shows that the AK47 and nuke are intrinsically the same, in terms of the value you were arguing.

Thing is, for the most part, I agree with him that reductio ad absurdum arguments tend to contain built in strawmen. Not always, mind, but they often do. One has to be careful not to make the error of using it when it's inappropriate.

2) The argument wasn't really that nukes should be legal... but that children should be taught to use them, in case they get their hands on them later in life... which is basically the argument being used for giving a kid an Uzi to shoot.

Now this, I agree with. Kids shouldn't be handling firearms. Firearms are only for adults. Furthermore, all firearm-owning adults ought to be required to attend a gun safety and usage course, and should keep their gun safely stored at all times they are not intending to use it.

Kids shouldn't be handling firearms. Firearms are only for adults. Furthermore, all firearm-owning adults ought to be required to attend a gun safety and usage course, and should keep their gun safely stored at all times they are not intending to use it.
Hmmmmm.... I'm not so sure to ban all youths from firearms. Young people have safely used rifles and hunted for hundreds of years. However, they were generally taught to use their gun safely and didn't use the equivalent of a cannon to go after squirrels.

Hmmmmm.... I'm not so sure to ban all youths from firearms. Young people have safely used rifles and hunted for hundreds of years. However, they were generally taught to use their gun safely and didn't use the equivalent of a cannon to go after squirrels.I had to pass a 100 question rifle safety test to join the rifle team at school.
It was...really hard. One missed question is automatic failure.
I think everyone should have to take it.

I didn't even see anything confirming the fire rate of the weapon, nothing says it was firing auto.


It's an Uzi, that gives us a few things to work with. Uzi's fire at 600 rounds a minute, and as far as I know, have no select fire option. You're either firing full auto, or you're not.


You don't let a child of that age fire a weapon like that without being absolutely sure they can control it.

Oh, I know the instructor screwed up big time here. The question is whether there were other screw ups or not at play.


Any way you look at it the instructor screwed up there. The father was a doctor, an Emergency Room physican, that blew me away. I work in a hospital and most of the ED docs are pretty opinionated on guns. Once you see first hand what they do to a body and the tragedy and stupidity that leads to it you tend to sway torwards the more control side of gun issues.

I think he may sway more towards it now.

Well, parents were stupid and gave a gun to an 8-year old. One of the causes of this are gun nuts that try to push guns on anyone and anything because of the fantasy created by the NRA that any kind of restriction on gun use (such as forbidding the use of firearms by 8-year-olds) is the Apocalypse happening.

This boy's death is partly his parent's fault and partly the NRA's. I'd like to think that NOW they'll stop pushing guns on children like guns are f***ing candy, but, knowing NRA, I know better.

Hmmmmm.... I'm not so sure to ban all youths from firearms. Young people have safely used rifles and hunted for hundreds of years. However, they were generally taught to use their gun safely and didn't use the equivalent of a cannon to go after squirrels.
Eh...it's debatable.

Maybe keeping them fully banned under thirteen then allowing those above to carry squirrel guns/hunting rifles only in the presence of a trained adult?

I had to pass a 100 question rifle safety test to join the rifle team at school.
It was...really hard. One missed question is automatic failure.
I think everyone should have to take it.

Something like that. I don't know if I'd make the course THAT hard, but something more than what we have now, where it's essentially check in, get your security checks, then lock and load.

What moron gives an 8 year old an uzi?!

What moron gives an 8 year old an uzi?!

The kind of moron stimulated by the NRA to give toddlers a RP Grenade because "anything less would hurt 2nd Amendment, hur hur".

'Cause, you know, there's no such thing as fallout, or dust, or climatalogical effects, or...

Oh, wait, I guess there is an effect.


Most people assume that if you use a nuclear device anywhere in the US, people are going to start bursting into flames like in a Terminator movie, or falling over with radiation poisoning, coughing up their brains.

Which is because most people have never actually paid attention to the real physical properties of nuclear technology, and instead buy into hysteria.

If you tested a nuclear device somewhere like - off the top of my head - Alamagordo, you probably wouldn't get more than negligible effect on inhabited America - especially if you tested underground, for example.

And there are more remote locations even than that.


Thing is, for the most part, I agree with him that reductio ad absurdum arguments tend to contain built in strawmen. Not always, mind, but they often do. One has to be careful not to make the error of using it when it's inappropriate.


A reductio ad absurdum argument CAN lead to a strawman - there's nothing implicit about it.

Something like that. I don't know if I'd make the course THAT hard, but something more than what we have now, where it's essentially check in, get your security checks, then lock and load.It was designed by Army TRADOC. :p
It's hard, but it keeps any incompetent person from using a rifle.

Most people assume that if you use a nuclear device anywhere in the US, people are going to start bursting into flames like in a Terminator movie, or falling over with radiation poisoning, coughing up their brains.

Which is because most people have never actually paid attention to the real physical properties of nuclear technology, and instead buy into hysteria.

If you tested a nuclear device somewhere like - off the top of my head - Alamagordo, you probably wouldn't get more than negligible effect on inhabited America - especially if you tested underground, for example.

And there are more remote locations even than that.


Testing underground has actually contributed to seismic activity in a number of places, including Colorado.

Other than that...eh, fine, I'll give it to you. Mind, the kind of place that you'd need to go for would be so remote that there wouldn't be a point anyway...It'd be like using a rifle to rob a fifty-year-old abandoned log cabin...

A reductio ad absurdum argument CAN lead to a strawman - there's nothing implicit about it.
I disagree, but only because most people have an annoying tendency to form it so that it becomes a strawman.

Thankfully, you almost never do. :)

It was designed by Army TRADOC. :p
It's hard, but it keeps any incompetent person from using a rifle.

True enough...

It's an Uzi, that gives us a few things to work with. Uzi's fire at 600 rounds a minute, and as far as I know, have no select fire option. You're either firing full auto, or you're not.I remember semi auto Uzi's being for sale in Cali before the Assault gun ban so I don't think you're correct there. Most posters assume the weapon was full auto but as I said nothing in the news I've been able to find confirms this. I'm gonna have to check a little deeper...

Just checked Uzi's website, the submachinegun does have select fire... and as I've stated before I remember US sale guns that were semi auto only.

I remember semi auto Uzi's being for sale in Cali before the Assault gun ban so I don't think you're correct there. Most posters assume the weapon was full auto but as I said nothing in the news I've been able to find confirms this. I'm gonna have to check a little deeper...

Just checked Uzi's website, the submachinegun does have select fire... and as I've stated before I remember US sale guns that were semi auto only.

I'm thinking there might have been some special permit involved where certain people can carry fully automatic versions. Because it wouldn't explain how an Uzi 9mm on semiautomatic would even approach its notorious recoil to where an 8-year old kid would shoot himself in the head.

I'm thinking there might have been some special permit involved where certain people can carry fully automatic versions. Because it wouldn't explain how an Uzi 9mm on semiautomatic would even approach its notorious recoil to where an 8-year old kid would shoot himself in the head.Once again, there was nothing to indicate the guns performance, it could have very well have been a select-fire model in the full auto mode, either on purpose or by accident. It could as easily have been a semi-auto model or a select-fire in semi-auto and the child, not experianced enough to know about recoil, let the gun rotate and in trying to recover hit the trigger again...

I remember a few years back a teenager died at a range locally while loading a SKS from a stripper clip. The strip fired off as he was pushing it down and the weapon rotated in his one hand stitching him with several rounds. It was rumoured that the weapon had been modified from it's legal to own semi-auto status...

I remember semi auto Uzi's being for sale in Cali before the Assault gun ban so I don't think you're correct there. Most posters assume the weapon was full auto but as I said nothing in the news I've been able to find confirms this. I'm gonna have to check a little deeper...

Just checked Uzi's website, the submachinegun does have select fire... and as I've stated before I remember US sale guns that were semi auto only.

Full auto Uzi's are allowed, or so I'm told, but only for special license holders, usually arms dealers. The average gun owner is not allowed to have any full auto weapons.

Full auto Uzi's are allowed, or so I'm told, but only for special license holders, usually arms dealers. The average gun owner is not allowed to have any full auto weapons.

Your right. Fully automatic weapons are regulated by the Federal Government under the National Firearms Act. To posses and sell these weapons a person requires a Class III license. These, while not impossible to get, are time consuming, expensive, and can be vetoed by the local dey-pu-tay you pissed off one too many times.

Just my opinion, but an 8 year old handling a gun, no less an Uzi doesn't sound like a good idea to me, and I'm pro-gun myself. I think the gun wasn't the problem, but the youth and inexperience of the child handling it.....

We wouldn't let the 8 year old drive a car, now would we?

Upon further research I've learned that the Uzi was a select fire model in the full auto mode, not by accident but on purpose. The event featured several full auto weapons that attendees could fire at pumkins. Advertisements read "You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control — FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL". Those under 16 were admitted free...

Upon further research I've learned that the Uzi was a select fire model in the full auto mode, not by accident but on purpose. The event featured several full auto weapons that attendees could fire at pumkins. Advertisements read "You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control — FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL". Those under 16 were admitted free...

That is... monumentally stupid. It's so fucking dumb it makes the whole thing almost funny. Almost.

Upon further research I've learned that the Uzi was a select fire model in the full auto mode, not by accident but on purpose. The event featured several full auto weapons that attendees could fire at pumkins. Advertisements read "You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control — FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL". Those under 16 were admitted free...

That is... monumentally stupid. It's so fucking dumb it makes the whole thing almost funny. Almost.

Especially since apparently there was no consideration for child mass and recoil taken into account with this shootyfest. Pintle-mounted machine guns are one thing, but assault rifles and SMGs capable of full auto? Fuck.

Upon further research I've learned that the Uzi was a select fire model in the full auto mode, not by accident but on purpose. The event featured several full auto weapons that attendees could fire at pumkins. Advertisements read "You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control — FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL". Those under 16 were admitted free...

I wonder if that was a disclaimer...

I wonder if that was a disclaimer...

I'd think most people would read it as an enticement, where the general public can actually handle and fire real military-grade weapons full auto rather than some informal release policy.

Guns are a kind of a substitution for a penis. It’s not acceptable to play with your penis all the time. And I wouldn’t be surprised that the size of the penis is correlated with the size or amount of guns in your house. The smaller your penis, the more guns in the house.

Firearms are NOT a substitution for a penis. When will you hoplophobes retire that lame attack?

8 year old shoots himself in the head?

...

LULZ!

It had to be said.

If only he had been put into a coma by this accident, then we could have another "victim saint" like Audrey Santo and her weeping statues. Their tears taste like chicken.

Apparently this type of things aren't rare..


http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/westfield_police_release_name.html
Flyers promoting the weekend event stated "It's all legal & fun - No permits or licenses required!" "Full Auto Rock & Roll and "You will be accompanied to the firing line with a certified instructor to guide you."

Attendees under the age of 16 were admitted free, and free .22-caliber pistol and rifle shooting for adults and kids was offered, according to the promotional material.

Douglas E. Reed of Agawam said he was stunned to read of the accident in the paper Monday.

At the time he was taking a break while hunting in the woods of West Granville.

"I had a horrible sinking feeling for the guys up there. It was a horrible thing," he said.

Two years ago he brought his son Michael, then 9 years old, to the firearms expo at the Westfield Sportsman Club. A photo of Michael firing a machine gun was printed in the paper.

He said something must have gone wrong Sunday. "It was an unfortunate accident."


http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2008_10_28_Machine_gun_‘shoots__a_draw_across_nation/
Additionally, a 13-year-old girl was killed in 1995 when the quarter-ton machine gun she was firing fell on her and crushed her, the paper reported.

btw. The picture in the latter link is...startling.

Show me a school massacre executed by a machete and I'll agree.

I formerly thought guns are non issue in regards of violence...but having our country suffer 2 school shootings in a year I'm beginning to doubt that. :(

Both shooters practically refused to go through compulsory military training meaning they probably had wrong attitude towards guns in the first place.

edit:
As a statistic, in my country the guns per capita is among the highest, top 3-4, in the world. The shootings on the other hand have almost always been related to other crimes (or drunken* {accidental} gun waving :p).

*Most, I'd say 99+%, drunken crimes are commited by traditional weapons like knives. We're big on drunken knife killings. :\

Show me a killing spree committed with only a knife. Oh wait, here's one: http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=65225&cat=11 Here's another: http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4811 Here's a third one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7482967.stm

Firearms aren't the only way to go on a killing spree. It's the culture of violence that's more dangerous.

Show me a killing spree committed with only a knife.
I asked for a school massacre commited by peers.

I'm well aware of mass stabbings and that culture of violence is the main culprit even in shootings.

It's an Uzi, that gives us a few things to work with. Uzi's fire at 600 rounds a minute, and as far as I know, have no select fire option. You're either firing full auto, or you're not.



Oh, I know the instructor screwed up big time here. The question is whether there were other screw ups or not at play.



I think he may sway more towards it now.

There are semi only uzis out there (or uzi clones). Considering this was a machine gun shoot though, I'm thinking this was full auto. The Associated Press is reporting it as a full auto uzi, as well (although that doesn't mean much, as a lot of press gives the appearance that they can't tell the difference between an uzi and a rubber band gun).

Firearms are NOT a substitution for a penis. When will you hoplophobes retire that lame attack?

When it stops seeming to be all too true.

Dude - it's not wishful thinking if your own source said it...
It didn't. The source said it's reported crime only, which is kinda obvious, because you can't measure unreported crime.

But it didn't say anything going along with your hypotheses of the "But maybe UK just reports more crimes!" sort.


You've provided NOTHING that actually addresses the actual incidence of crimes.
I have. You're arguing technicalities. "Reported or committed". In a situation where the difference is striking, 2.3 times.

It's like if we were arguing about which plane is faster, I presented data in a level flight, showing one plane is 2.3 times faster than another, and you went on to argue "But the maximum speed is achieved in dive, and you've provided nothing that addresses dive speed".

Firearms are NOT a substitution for a penis. When will you hoplophobes retire that lame attack?

When gun owners stop acting like theyre compensating.

WTF?
Actually scratch that. I don't want to know the motivation behind that comment.
The key point here is "Non-assimilated". A large number of non-assimilated people leads to increase in local social tension and in crime, at least among them.

You know the figures as well as I do, certain crime rates among certain groups are an order of magnitude higher. Sufficiently, in fact, to constitute half of their kind.

This is not due to some intrinsic properties of the people committing them; this is due to them not being assimilated into the middle-class US culture, and living in worse conditions.

Full auto Uzi's are allowed, or so I'm told, but only for special license holders, usually arms dealers. The average gun owner is not allowed to have any full auto weapons.

Your right. Fully automatic weapons are regulated by the Federal Government under the National Firearms Act. To posses and sell these weapons a person requires a Class III license. These, while not impossible to get, are time consuming, expensive, and can be vetoed by the local dey-pu-tay you pissed off one too many times.

Not true. Anyone (that can legally own a firearm) can own a full auto/select fire weapon manufactured before 1986, assuming it's legal locally and they fill out the necessary paperwork. If the full auto/select fire weapon was manufactured after 1986 though, only a class III or LEO can own it.

When it stops seeming to be all too true.

Prove it. Show me a study that shows a correlation between the two (no pics, though). Until then, it's nothing more than an unfounded attack by hoplophobes.

When gun owners stop acting like theyre compensating.

I'm a firearms owner, and I don't compensate (I don't act like I'm compensating, either).

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2008_10_28_Machine_gun_‘shoots__a_draw_across_nation/
Additionally, a 13-year-old girl was killed in 1995 when the quarter-ton machine gun she was firing fell on her and crushed her, the paper reported.


What the hell sort of machinegun weighs 250kg? King Kong's personal autocannon?

Not true. Anyone (that can legally own a firearm) can own a full auto/select fire weapon manufactured before 1986, assuming it's legal locally and they fill out the necessary paperwork. If the full auto/select fire weapon was manufactured after 1986 though, only a class III or LEO can own it.

Wouldn't that make things like early model AKs, Thompson SMGs, STG-44s and similar legal?

Prove it. Show me a study that shows a correlation between the two (no pics, though). Until then, it's nothing more than an unfounded attack by hoplophobes.

Notice the word "seeming." I didn't say it was true.

But the way you're acting is sure making me wonder if it is.

...Wouldn't that make things like early model AKs, Thompson SMGs, STG-44s and similar legal?

As long as it's legal in your local area, and was manufactured before 1986, then you should be able to fill out the paperwork and get one. I'm sure they're quite spendy though. The 1986 cutoff spiked prices, as there's a finite supply of full auto/select fire weapons, and a decent demand.

I'm a firearms owner, and I don't compensate (I don't act like I'm compensating, either).

You don't act like you're compensating?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Notice the word "seeming." I didn't say it was true.

But the way you're acting is sure making me wonder if it is.

So, being sick of the same lame personal attack is evidence that it may be true? Oh wait, it's not. It's just evidence that it's a lame personal attack. It's like saying that all europeans are arrogant assholes. Even if I say it 1000 times, it doesn't make it true. But I'm sure it'll piss off more than a few europeans. This is no different.

So, being sick of the same lame personal attack is evidence that it may be true? Oh wait, it's not. It's just evidence that it's a lame personal attack. It's like saying that all europeans are arrogant assholes. Even if I say it 1000 times, it doesn't make it true. But I'm sure it'll piss off more than a few europeans. This is no different.

You're funny. Are you here all week?

So aaaangrryyyyyy

As long as it's legal in your local area, and was manufactured before 1986, then you should be able to fill out the paperwork and get one. I'm sure they're quite spendy though. The 1986 cutoff spiked prices, as there's a finite supply of full auto/select fire weapons, and a decent demand.

Where would a Vietnam era General Electric M61 fit in that then?

They teach kids how to use bows, and I'll be damned if there's any outcry from Bow Control Advocates, lemme tell ya...

ah but shooting yourself in the head with A bow is downright Difficult . . .believe me! I would know!

Where would a Vietnam era General Electric M61 fit in that then?

If it's Vietnam era, then it should be. If a Lahti 20mm Cannon is legal to sell, then an M61 should be. I doubt you'd be able to find one for sale, let alone at anything other than an outrageous price, though.

If it's Vietnam era, then it should be. If a Lahti 20mm Cannon is legal to sell, then an M61 should be. I doubt you'd be able to find one for sale, let alone at anything other than an outrageous price, though.

Odd. I thought the sale of anything firing calibers larger than .50 were restricted from civil ownership.

Odd. I thought the sale of anything firing calibers larger than .50 were restricted from civil ownership.

Firearms with a bore larger than 1/2" (.50 cal) are considered destructive devices, with the exception of most shotguns and black powder rifles. Destructive devices are regulated under the NFA act as well. Although they may be banned locally (town, city, state), they are legal under federal law.

Nanatsu, silly girl -- your blonde, blue-eyed relatives simply don't exist. And the census recognizes all Hispanics as white.

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf

According to THE LOST PLANET, indeed I am a silly girl.:rolleyes:

considering she is from Spain I will take her word for it.

He is missinterpreting the old name for the Iberian Peninsula. The area that comforms Spain and Portugal was named Hispania, by the Romans. But neither the Portuguese nor the Spanish are considered Hispanics.

Notice the word "seeming." I didn't say it was true.

Then why make a statement that you yourself dont believe to be true?

Bullshit. Mega-mega-mega bullshit. And you know it is, and you wouldn't accept the same data as anything more than what it is, in other circumstances.

What the data tells us is how many crimes are reported.

What the sources qualify that with, is a tacit admission that it represents ONLY reporting of crimes, not necessarily their commission.

In absence of data that links reporting levels directly and proportional to actual commission of crimes, ALL a source like that can EVER show - is how many get reported.

And I'm saying that this data is, most likely, a sample sufficiently representative of the general population as to be useful for the purposes at hand.

But, to humour you briefly, and explain WHY you know it's bullshit - if HAMAS claims that they've NEVER killed anyone... how many casualties do you think that accurately relates to?

If the KGB claimed that no one was ever imprisoned, harmed or killed, during more than a half a century... those being the 'reported' numbers, how accurately would you think it matched the actual bodycount?

Yes - I'm using extreme examples - but the point is blindingly obvious: statistics of how many times a thing is SAID to have happened, is a very, VERY poor indicator of it's actual occurance.

The problem is that those examples are not merely extreme, but they are entirely non-relevant. In both instances, the entities at hand sought to deliberately suppress data pertaining to their actions. Further, there is significant evidence that exists to contradict their claims. In this case, though, neither of these facts is true.

We're human beings equipped with an ability to judge usefulness, let's try to use that, mm'kay?

I agree. And, if the topic had been 'how often do crimes get REPORTED', this data would be extraordinarily useful. As it is, it's slightly more worthwhile than a fart in a hurricane.

Only to you, because you are deliberately choosing to undervalue the data, because not doing so would substantially weaken your position. This data does have value for the argument at hand.

Regardless, here's the NCVS, which does take into account unreported crime. Feel free to compare the statistics, I've got other things to do this morning.

Odd. I thought the sale of anything firing calibers larger than .50 were restricted from civil ownership.
Only rifled weapons. Smoothbores are clean. Gauge 12 is 18mm already...


P.S. I've posted some new WIP design on HT, sorry for long delays.

It didn't. The source said it's reported crime only, which is kinda obvious, because you can't measure unreported crime.


Obviously. Which is why I disputed your initial claim about the incidence of crime. A story you've now recanted, and are pretending you'd argued something else, apparently.


But it didn't say anything going along with your hypotheses of the "But maybe UK just reports more crimes!" sort.


That was a reason why the stats can not be trusted. If all we have is reports of crime, not actual crime commission stats, then we have to allow for the fact that we dont know what proportion are being reported.


I have. You're arguing technicalities. "Reported or committed". In a situation where the difference is striking, 2.3 times.


It is a technicality' to point out that your source doesn't say what you claim it says?


It's like if we were arguing about which plane is faster, I presented data in a level flight, showing one plane is 2.3 times faster than another, and you went on to argue "But the maximum speed is achieved in dive, and you've provided nothing that addresses dive speed".

It's nothing like that at all.

It's like we're arguing about which plane is fastest, and you pull out a report by a local plane-enthusiast society which says they've seen the SR-71 flying at 400 mph.

Odd. I thought the sale of anything firing calibers larger than .50 were restricted from civil ownership.

actually if it was bought before 1933 I think its grandfathered in. anyways my uncle has a WWI artillery piece that works. My great grand dad bought it when the family had money. And now it is illegal to sell or transfer ownership in anyway other then by Will.

actually if it was bought before 1933 I think its grandfathered in. anyways my uncle has a WWI artillery piece that works. My great grand dad bought it when the family had money. And now it is illegal to sell or transfer ownership in anyway other then by Will.

That is quite correct.

That is quite correct.

we've kept it in working order and fire it off(A blank) once at the family reunion held once every six years. Any 3rd world country want to buy it let me know. pain in the ass keeping the ammo. we reuse the casings when possible but those are wearing out.

Ownt :D

Also :(

And I'm saying that this data is, most likely, a sample sufficiently representative of the general population as to be useful for the purposes at hand.


ANd I'm saying that that argument is bullshit, and that the sources themselves deliberately point out that they are representing ONLY 'reported incidents' rather than commission of incidents, because there is NO way to directly link the two.


The problem is that those examples are not merely extreme, but they are entirely non-relevant. In both instances, the entities at hand sought to deliberately suppress data pertaining to their actions. Further, there is significant evidence that exists to contradict their claims. In this case, though, neither of these facts is true.


Actually, one of Vault's sources claims that the British government, at least, also "deliberate suppress(es) data", specifically with regard to rape statistics. If that is admitted as true and accounts for maybe 25% of the statistic, how much more data is similarly being hidden, in each and every case?


We're human beings equipped with an ability to judge usefulness, let's try to use that, mm'kay?


Being patronising when you're trying to pretend a piece of evidence says something it doesn't just makes you look like a fraud. You are the udes-car-salesman trying to act condescending when you question the condition of the engine in that Dodge with 150,000 miles on the clock.

In terms of judging usefulness - if Vault REALLY wanted to talk about the relevent statistics, he'd have presented something like hospital admissions.

But Vault wasn't interested in presenting relevent statistics. Vault wanted to push a certain set of numbers that fit a certain agenda, IF you read them a certain way.

And all that, despite the sources he cited stating EXPLICITLY that they don't say what he says they say.

ANd I'm saying that that argument is bullshit, and that the sources themselves deliberately point out that they are representing ONLY 'reported incidents' rather than commission of incidents, because there is NO way to directly link the two.

They are linkable in that reported crimes are a large sample taken directly from the actual population of crimes committed. That should be clear, there is a way to link.


Actually, one of Vault's sources claims that the British government, at least, also "deliberate suppress(es) data", specifically with regard to rape statistics. If that is admitted as true and accounts for maybe 25% of the statistic, how much more data is similarly being hidden, in each and every case?

I can imagine that it's probably the weird source that I didn't bother to read when I saw the title.

Being patronising when you're trying to pretend a piece of evidence says something it doesn't just makes you look like a fraud. You are the udes-car-salesman trying to act condescending when you question the condition of the engine in that Dodge with 150,000 miles on the clock.

Quit the ad hominem, it's getting old.

In terms of judging usefulness - if Vault REALLY wanted to talk about the relevent statistics, he'd have presented something like hospital admissions.

The problem there, though, is that violent crime doesn't always end in hospital admissions, and those violent crimes that do end in hospital admissions are most likely the more likely crimes to be reported.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

There's the NCVS, it should be helpful, it seeks to measure unreported crimes.

But Vault wasn't interested in presenting relevent statistics. Vault wanted to push a certain set of numbers that fit a certain agenda, IF you read them a certain way.

And all that, despite the sources he cited stating EXPLICITLY that they don't say what he says they say.

The sources he presented do say something very closely related to what he's saying they say, though. The connection between the two should be exceptionally easy to make.

They are linkable in that reported crimes are a large sample taken directly from the actual population of crimes committed. That should be clear, there is a way to link.


There is a way to link. Of the totality of crimes committed, those that were reported equates to x, y, or z.

But we don't know what proportionality are reported.

And, in absence of THAT proportion, the data is USEFUL, but not for the purpose to which Vault (and now, apparently, you) tried to twist it.


I can imagine that it's probably the weird source that I didn't bother to read when I saw the title.


Your failure to read the sources is not my problem. If you are then going to make generalisations about the difference between the data and the parallels I suggested, suggesting a conflict which was already adressed i the data you chose to ignore - it makes no impact on what I said. It just makes you look lazy.


Quit the ad hominem, it's getting old.


Duplicity doesn't look good on you. Your patronising and thinly-veiled ad hominems, when pointed out to you, do not constitute an ad hominem attack in return.

You attacked my argument, by attacking me. I simply told you that being patronising isn't helpful.

If you can't bring yourself to debate honestly, tell me - and I'll be only too willing to ignore your posts from here on out.


The problem there, though, is that violent crime doesn't always end in hospital admissions, and those violent crimes that do end in hospital admissions are most likely the more likely crimes to be reported.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm


Violent crimes don't always end in hospital admissions... and you see that as a problem?

And you go on to expand upon it, by pointing out that hospital visits are most likely to be the crimes reported...

And yet you don't see a 'problem' with the fact that violent crimes don't always end in reports?

Let me put it in math:

A (is directly proportional to) B.

A is false. But apparently, you want to claim B is still true.

It's logical hypocrisy.


There's the NCVS, it should be helpful, it seeks to measure unreported crimes.


And one of the chief tools it uses is hospital admissions? Why didn't I think of that?

It's a valid tool, I applaud it. Of course, sampling, no matter how well intentioned, is never more than a best guess... so their 76,000 households are a useful indicator, but could be ENTIRELY misleading, yes?

It would be even more useful if it wasn't US-centric.


The sources he presented do say something very closely related to what he's saying they say, though. The connection between the two should be exceptionally easy to make.

It IS exceptionally easy to make. However, in absence of the PROPORTION data, it's also useless.

In terms of judging usefulness - if Vault REALLY wanted to talk about the relevent statistics, he'd have presented something like hospital admissions.
Hospital admissions are not relevant. They happen for all sorts of reasons.

I presented crime statistics.


But Vault wasn't interested in presenting relevent statistics. Vault wanted to push a certain set of numbers that fit a certain agenda, IF you read them a certain way.
The source they're coming from has no agenda. It's just a collection of statistics.

And every other source I've found gives the same figures.


And all that, despite the sources he cited stating EXPLICITLY that they don't say what he says they say.
I say they are reported crimes, and that's what the sources say, too.

But unless you have a way to prove there's no correlation between reported and committed crimes, we have to stick to the idea that they are highly correlated.

There is a way to link. Of the totality of crimes committed, those that were reported equates to x, y, or z.

But we don't know what proportionality are reported.

And, in absence of THAT proportion, the data is USEFUL, but not for the purpose to which Vault (and now, apparently, you) tried to twist it.

It doesn't matter that we lack the proportionality data, because we can make some simple assumptions in regards to the proportionality. That's all I'm arguing.


Your failure to read the sources is not my problem. If you are then going to make generalisations about the difference between the data and the parallels I suggested, suggesting a conflict which was already adressed i the data you chose to ignore - it makes no impact on what I said. It just makes you look lazy.

I did not read the source because I judged the source to be, most likely, from a nutter. To say that the government of the UK is deliberately suppressing the true violent crime rates so that it can keep guns illegal is silly.

The other sources though, are not impacted by this in any way, shape or form.


Duplicity doesn't look good on you. Your patronising and thinly-veiled ad hominems, when pointed out to you, do not constitute an ad hominem attack in return.

You attacked my argument, by attacking me. I simply told you that being patronising isn't helpful.

If you can't bring yourself to debate honestly, tell me - and I'll be only too willing to ignore your posts from here on out.

When did I ever attack you in this thread? I made a very reasonable assertion that we can just make a basic assumption that some things that are quite easily linked, are linked. I did not attack you, but you did attack me with that Dodge bit there. How about you try some honesty, mayhaps?

Violent crimes don't always end in hospital admissions... and you see that as a problem?

And you go on to expand upon it, by pointing out that hospital visits are most likely to be the crimes reported...

And yet you don't see a 'problem' with the fact that violent crimes don't always end in reports?

Let me put it in math:

A (is directly proportional to) B.

A is false. But apparently, you want to claim B is still true.

It's logical hypocrisy.
I see you didn't understand what I said:

I said that
a.) Violent crimes that end in hospitalization rates are more likely to be reported, and, thus, are more likely to be recorded in the reported rates.
b.) Violent crimes that end in hospitalization are a smaller sample of the whole than all reported crimes.

I am not saying that either of these is false, I'm just asking why you would prefer to use hospitalization rates over reporting rates, if this were the case.

It's a valid tool, I applaud it. Of course, sampling, no matter how well intentioned, is never more than a best guess... so their 76,000 households are a useful indicator, but could be ENTIRELY misleading, yes?

It would be even more useful if it wasn't US-centric. [/QUOTE

I was providing the NCVS to use as a the US data source in a comparison between US and UK crime rates, why is it bad, then to have a source derived from the US?



[QUOTE=]It IS exceptionally easy to make. However, in absence of the PROPORTION data, it's also useless.

This is neither a formal policy debate between policymakers, nor is it an academic debate, and as such, the rules here are, and should be, slightly looser and faster than in those fields. That's why I would argue that we can assume the numbers to be linked. My stats prof once said that we only need to test and correlate in relation to the importance of the use of the data, especially when we are dealing with prepared data.

Hospital admissions are not relevant. They happen for all sorts of reasons.


Yes. Linking to, for example, GSW data from hospital admissions would have been very deceptive in a debate about wounds caused by gun shots.


I presented crime statistics.


No, you didn't.


The source they're coming from has no agenda. It's just a collection of statistics.

And every other source I've found gives the same figures.


Your first source absolutely has an agenda.

But, that's not the one I was really talking about.

I was talking about the other ones - that explicitly say that they contain ONLY data about reporting, not necessarily about actual crimes.

I wasn't claiming that THEIRS was the agenda. I was claiming that the agenda was YOURS. After all - the sources ADMIT that the data doesn't say what you say it does.


I say they are reported crimes, and that's what the sources say, too.

But unless you have a way to prove there's no correlation between reported and committed crimes, we have to stick to the idea that they are highly correlated.

No, we don't.

Unless you can prove that there's no correlation between me SAYING you eat human feces, and your actual coprophagic tendencies, we have to assume I'm right, right?

No - because logic doesn't work like that, and neither does the (logical) assessment of sources.

You would have to SHOW that reports equate to actual incidence. Your sources say they can't do that, and I'm betting you can't, either.

It doesn't matter that we lack the proportionality data, because we can make some simple assumptions in regards to the proportionality. That's all I'm arguing.


We can make all kinds of assumptions with regards to the proportionality.

And, if they happen to be CLOSE to accurate, it will be divine intervention or blind luck, nothing to do with our methodology. Neither of which can really be considered logically, or statisticially reliable values.

You are arguing that the data must be roughly representative.

There's no evidence to support it, but you are free to make that argument.


I did not read the source because I judged the source to be, most likely, from a nutter.


I would agree. The source does appear to be a little eccentric.


To say that the government of the UK is deliberately suppressing the true violent crime rates


...is true. Although the WAY it is true maybe makes all the difference. And - it's one of the factors I've been discussing all the way through.

The UK categorises 'crimes' differently. For example - the 'nutty source' is right, the 'rape' statistics differ by 25%, depending on how you represent 'rape' crimes involving one or more under-16s.


...so that it can keep guns illegal is silly.


That would be... although I'm not sure that's the claim that's being made.


The other sources though, are not impacted by this in any way, shape or form.


No, but they ARE impacted by the manner in which data is assessed.

See the 'rape' example.


When did I ever attack you in this thread? I made a very reasonable assertion that we can just make a basic assumption that some things that are quite easily linked, are linked.


I believe your exact words were "In both instances, the entities at hand sought to deliberately suppress data pertaining to their actions. Further, there is significant evidence that exists to contradict their claims. In this case, though, neither of these facts is true. We're human beings equipped with an ability to judge usefulness, let's try to use that, mm'kay?"

You attacked my judgment, as an attack on the suggestion that the figures might be 'different'. I immediately showed you that at least one of the sources gives direct reference to that 'difference', invalidating your argument with a pre-presented source. That just leaves the implication that my judgment is found wanting.


I'm just asking why you would prefer to use hospitalization rates over reporting rates, if this were the case.


House would say, because patients lie.


I was providing the NCVS to use as a the US data source in a comparison between US and UK crime rates, why is it bad, then to have a source derived from the US?


Because it does nothing to address the comparability of US and UK crime statistics, which is what Vault was trying to argue.


This is neither a formal policy debate between policymakers, nor is it an academic debate, and as such, the rules here are, and should be, slightly looser and faster than in those fields.


Logic is logic. If you choose to embrace less rigour because you're not presenting a paper on it, so be it.

The logic supports my argument, but your 'relaxed' approach will let you feel your half-assed assumptions are worthy, so I say go with it.


That's why I would argue that we can assume the numbers to be linked. My stats prof once said that we only need to test and correlate in relation to the importance of the use of the data, especially when we are dealing with prepared data.

My stats professor said that all statistics can lie, and can be made to present any argument if you fuck with them enough. I prefer to deal with what the statistics actually SAY, and what they DON'T say.

we've kept it in working order and fire it off(A blank) once at the family reunion held once every six years. Any 3rd world country want to buy it let me know. pain in the ass keeping the ammo. we reuse the casings when possible but those are wearing out.


That's awesome. I kinda wish my family had reunions so we could do cool shit like this. As it is, a reunion would be pointless since we all see each other about once a month (there are so many birthdays that many months have to have two or three people's birthdays combined) anyway.