US is the 6th country in gun related deaths per capita [1]. I think human brains are very good at statistics.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
Good statistics beg good questions.
Hypothetically speaking...
Exactly...
> murder is very closely related to poverty
US is the only first world country, together with Russia, in the top 100 intentional homicide list [1]. The previous 3 countries are Burundi, Mayotte, Guadeloupe, and the next 3 countries are Greenland, Zambia, Liechtenstein (Greenland and Liechtenstein are probably round-off errors with less than 5 deaths per year). Are you really suggesting that those countries should be the benchmark for the US?
Now, according to the World Bank [2], the poverty rate in the US is 18%, which is very close to the UK (18.6%). The intentional homicide rates, though, are vastly different (5.763 vs 1.148). How does the poverty argument explain the 400% difference?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-r...
US is number one or two in immigration from 3rd world countries, and that's just by legal numbers, without considering illegal immigration, in which the US is also estimated to be number one.
This fits right in with the observable data you've shared.
You aren't actually claiming that the guns by themselves are making people murderous, right? That wouldn't be a scientifically sound hypothesis without some evidence to back. But I'll be interested to see if you can come up with something to tie those together.
Let's take Utah (since it's the topic of the thread) as an example to try to apply your argument. It has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, and one of the lowest murder rates in the world.
How does your argument, or any other, explain that?
This is good, because over the last 150 years, immigrants have been found to be significantly less likely to commit crimes than the U.S.-born [1] [2] [3].
> It has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, and one of the lowest murder rates in the world.
I didn't deny that poverty is a factor. That's why I compared US with UK, where average poverty numbers are very close to each other. Also, Utah’s rate is low for the U.S. but still higher than many countries globally [4].
[1] https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2024/03/immigrants-are...
[2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w31440
[3] https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-immigrants-have-low-homici...
[4] https://ibis.utah.gov/epht-view/indicator/important_facts/Ho...
You've given irrelevant data. Hopefully by accident because I'd like to believe your arguments are made in good faith.
Find stats for third world immigrants to make your point.
I'll fast forward the conversation for you, country of origin is statistically very significant.
Just like you, I don't like that this is true. But fixing problems requires honesty and objectivity.
Hiding problems with bs stats isn't going to help anyone. That's how we got here.
In fact, calling it "irrelevant" is pushing the boundaries of good faith. It definitely includes "third world" immigrants, too. Apparently we haven't been able to find any statistical significance of the country of origin [1]:
> According to the study, this is the case for almost every region in the world that is a major source of immigrants to the United States. As of 2019, immigrants from China and eastern and southern Europe were committing the fewest number of crimes — as measured by incarceration rates — relative to U.S.-born individuals.
The exception is Mexican and Central American immigrants, but their incarceration rates are similar to, not _higher_ than U.S.-born individuals:
> The exception is Mexican and Central American immigrants, [...] Incarceration rates among Mexican and Central American immigrants were similar to those of U.S.-born individuals between 1980 and 2005.
> Hiding problems with bs stats isn't going to help anyone.
You've given no data at all. As it stands, everything you posted are your personal opinions.
[1] https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigra...
What more do you need here? Immigration from third world countries increases crime and murder, having nothing to do with guns.
The previous data you gave tries to make the opposite point by including immigrants that aren't from third world countries, I.e. irrelevant. You for sure see how that's bad faith and I'm not going to entertain further discussion if you won't sustain that you're in the wrong for doing that.
You've also summarized the data with an interpretation that isn't honest to the numbers.
That last part absolutely ends the discussion for me. I'm interested in science not politics.
Otherwise you can say things like guns don't have bullets because we looked at "things that kill" and most of them don't.
That's obviously not a good way to answer questions.
Try talking with an expert or get help from someone to understand why we don't use statistics like that to make business or medical decisions.
I hope you have an easy time figuring it out.
Good luck.
"Almost everyone in the US is white," doesn't tell you anything about the demographics of the US. It's still technically true, but it's painting a grossly inaccurate picture of the demographics.
You should take on some statistics lectures or macrobio on Khan or something. This isn't a good platform for in depth discussion. You're not going to learn anything from this.
Talk to an expert. When they see what you're doing they will easily explain what's wrong to you.
Although, maybe these examples I gave are enough.
She would have had, to actually endanger me:
- to have enough strength to penetrate anything
- the courage to see a lot of blood and cries to actually go through with a full murder
- resist me fighting her back if it went to that, close range
- not react to any rational argument I would beg her to listen to while she attacked me
It was a bit traumatizing, but we laugh at it now... she failed at the first rational argument I presented "don't do it, don't ruin your life for a guy".
Imagine if we were in a gun country, and she pressed the trigger accidentally... it's not the same, you must understand that, knife murders are really really hard, gun murders really really easy.
Is this because they legalized knives? Obviously not.
It's because murder typically rises with poverty and wealth disparity.
There was also the Kunming train station mass stabbing a decade or so ago, killing 31 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack
Note that China does have a pretty low homicide rate, probably since guns are so hard to get ahold of (death penalty for even producing guns in backyard workshops).
Even if it was as low as Canada, for example, 11,989 of the 19,796 people who died last year might still be living today.
If you think that those extra deaths are acceptable, and that guns have nothing to do with that, then I don't believe I can change your mind.
What else with a 0.00006% (20k/330M) chance of happening are we walking around worried about every day?
Edit: Note that the correct answer here is that these mass shooting deaths are primarily focused on school children, and has become their (first? second?) leading cause of death at certain age groups. IMO we solve this by raising the gun purchase age to 26, because this is mostly school-age children shooting younger school-age children, then we can ignore the problem pretty much indefinitely.
0.00006% every year...
Why should there be a priority list? Why can't we improve multiple things simultaneously?
> we solve this by raising the gun purchase age to 26, because this is mostly school-age children shooting younger school-age children
This won't solve the problem. A Secret Service study of school attackers (2008–2017) [1] found that "Many of the attackers were able to access firearms from the home of their parents or another close relative."
[1] https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Pr...