How many people are seriously afraid of firearms?

Page 12 of 14 [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Are you afraid of firearms?
I'm afraid of people using them wrongly, but am not afraid of their mere form. 40%  40%  [ 20 ]
I'm afraid of the mere form of firearms. 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
I don't have a problem with firearms. 32%  32%  [ 16 ]
Other stance regarding firearms that you may state below if you care to do so. 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
I don't have an opinion, I just want an option to click that says nothing. 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 50

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

28 Nov 2011, 5:13 pm

fraac wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
pastafarian wrote:
I trust the UN stats.

I dont trust a Daily Mail story because thats been written with the sole purpose of selling papers.


The article is based on EU stats.


And you ignored the fine print, which I already pointed out. Are you trolling?


Ohh, a troll accusing me of trolling. How quaint.

But I linked to that article just to prove my earlier point that it's incredibly easy to manipulate statistics, even if they are from the UN or EU.



pastafarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 549
Location: London

28 Nov 2011, 5:18 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
pastafarian wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
"The scale" is meaningless unless it's adjusted to the massive population difference.



errggh???? I just adjusted it .

As I said the population of the UK is 1/5th of US, so I multiplied the UK number by 5

Can explain how thats not adjusting it?


Assuming that the number of murders would increase at the same rate if the population was five times bigger isn't reliable at all.


I had adjusted for the massive population difference, before you pointed it out, you just missed it.
I agree it may not be an accurate extrapolation (for whatever reason?).

But it is to a first order and with the UK population scaled up, I'm comparing a number close to 10,000 (US), to a number close to 100 (UK).

Is the scale of difference not astonishing to you, at all?



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

28 Nov 2011, 5:21 pm

You can't take a small sample of people then assume that whatever's true for them will be true for an imaginary larger population.

That's why you need stats that use ratios. They will say that "for every 100,000 people, [insert number here] is shot every month" or something. That's a fairly reliable way to work around the population difference.



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

28 Nov 2011, 5:24 pm

Asp-Z, why would you not trust statistics on people killed by firearms? You were either shot dead or you weren't.

"That's why you need stats that use ratios."

If you adjust for population then you are using ratios. Every 12 year old understands this.



pastafarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 549
Location: London

28 Nov 2011, 5:33 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
You can't take a small sample of people then assume that whatever's true for them will be true for an imaginary larger population.

That's why you need stats that use ratios. They will say that "for every 100,000 people, [insert number here] is shot every month" or something. That's a fairly reliable way to work around the population difference.


UN 2002
For every 309million people 9,300 people are shot a year (US)
For every 70million people 14 people are shot a year (UK),

You estimate it for every 100,000 people and see if you are astonished by the scale of the difference.
I don't need to.



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

28 Nov 2011, 5:38 pm

US: 3 per 100,000 per year
UK: 0.02 per 100,000 per year

US has 150 times more killings by firearms. Agreed?



pastafarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 549
Location: London

28 Nov 2011, 5:43 pm

I was just making it dead easy, comparing a number close to 10,000 (US), to a number close to 100 (UK).

100 times? 150 times? 50 times? 200 times?

I dont care. The ballpark its astonishing!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Nov 2011, 5:51 pm

fraac wrote:
US: 3 per 100,000 per year
UK: 0.02 per 100,000 per year

US has 150 times more killings by firearms. Agreed?


Britain also has 1/5 the population of the States*, so per person that would reduce it to 30 times more killings by firearms per person in the US compared to Britain, which is way more still of course. However, something to consider is that each State in the US makes its own laws regarding firearms, so by going with the country overall you're mixing in both the States which honor the 2nd Amendment and those which don't.

USA population: 313,232,044 (July 2011 est.)
UK population: 62,698,362 (July 2011 est.)

*[313,232,044 / 62,698,362 = 4.99 truncated, meaning the USA has approximately 5 times the population of the UK.]



Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 28 Nov 2011, 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

28 Nov 2011, 5:53 pm

I give up.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Nov 2011, 6:02 pm

fraac wrote:
I give up.


Sorry, I don't mean to frustrate you but really the matter with the laws of the individual states is important because just comparing the overall stats of the nation the higher rates of firearm involved murders of states are averaged. Some states will have more murders than others based on population density even, since with the more supply of people in an area the less they value each other. Some may be due to the lack of fear presented in states where lawful citizens are not permitted to defend themselves and others due to escalation of risk as you were saying. Still though, the usage of numbers for the nation generally is not a proper comparison.



Blasty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205
Location: At my workbench

29 Nov 2011, 1:23 am

Guns are bitchin'. I have lots (and then some), and always a loaded one in the night stand drawer in case someone wants to pay a surprise visit in the middle of the night. I consider it not only a responsibility to myself, but to my soon-to-be fiance as well. Imagine how it would feel to be powerless while an intruder assaulted someone you love. I question the sanity of anyone who wouldn't want at least a chance to stop the bastard before he could do it. Simply having a gun in hand ends most confrontations; relatively few actually involve shots being fired.

I feel far safer in a society where responsible people are allowed to own guns than I would in a society where nobody can. Shooting as a hobby is also a fun personal challenge and a great way to relieve stress. I would hate to be deprived of this because of other peoples' ill-founded fears.



pastafarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 549
Location: London

29 Nov 2011, 4:26 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Britain also has 1/5 the population of the States*, so per person that would reduce it to 30 times more killings by firearms per person in the US compared to Britain, which is way more still of course. However, something to consider is that each State in the US makes its own laws regarding firearms, so by going with the country overall you're mixing in both the States which honor the 2nd Amendment and those which don't.

USA population: 313,232,044 (July 2011 est.)
UK population: 62,698,362 (July 2011 est.)

*[313,232,044 / 62,698,362 = 4.99 truncated, meaning the USA has approximately 5 times the population of the UK.]


No this is wrong (sorry if I sound frustrated). Please go back. The population difference has been accounted for - I have repeatedly said this. I said "its roughly 5 times the population" and corrected for this.

[b] I've edited this a few minutes later cos I'm trying to find some real stats and not UN 2002 stats



Last edited by pastafarian on 29 Nov 2011, 5:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

29 Nov 2011, 4:54 am

I am not astonished because the results don't seem surprising, they seemed obvious in the first place. ;)

If you did a second ratio for non-firearm killing, that would add perspective as well.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

29 Nov 2011, 4:58 am

What's the murder rate between the US and UK (all means)?

I bet they're pretty close.

The object used is really a moot point there.



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

29 Nov 2011, 4:59 am

Oh, and the state-by-state laws / population density deflection isn't doing it for me either.

If there was a marked increase in kill ratio due to dense populations getting on each other's nerves, there'd be a way higher kill ratio in the UK. UK is much more densely populated than the US, generally speaking.

I mean, the most dangerous (highest violent crime rate) cities in the US are St Louis, MO and Detroit, MI. Neither of those is a bustling metropolis. In fact, there's mostly just a bunch of rusty abandoned buildings there.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


pastafarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 549
Location: London

29 Nov 2011, 5:03 am

Guys you replied to my post, I then edited it a few minutes later cos I am trying to find some UN 2010 stats.

The chart we keep refering to is 2002.