Guns, gun control, violence, statistics, U.S. vs U.K.

[Guest]

I watched an interview (or was it a debate) between two gentlemen who cited very different numbers about murders in the U.S. and in the U.K. It seemed to be a real point of contention, with the word liar being tossed in for good measure. The numbers were hugely different not just between the U.S, and the U.K., but between one person and the other. Obvious to me, was that omitted from the conversation, was the population difference between the two countries. Less obvious, was the fact that these two gentlemen were saying very different things, not just different numbers. Sorry to be so vague in the description, but I think it would be better if you just watched it, if this sort of thing interests you.

In this post, I will put the video of the debate. The numbers were so different, that I decided to look into them as the host of the show suggested, to see who was the bigger liar, lol. In the next post, I will put another video, where someone did a more thorough investigation of the numbers, and bothered to analyze why they are different and what the differences really mean. Enjoy!

I just noticed that this video has already been posted, If you have already watched it, just go to the second posting and watch the analysis. Sorry!

http://youtu.be/QFbKhAfw4RI

Edited April 9, 2013 by Omegaman
apology that this vid was already posted

[Guest]

The analysis:

[Guest]

Amen~!

[ncn]

Who is right and who is wrong

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_trends_in_detail

[Guest ninhao]

Again we can see how an agenda can be pushed through very poor analysis of data from both sides of a debate.

We have seen no mention of the criteria which makes a crime violent. For instance in some countries affray is considered violent crime where others it must include physical assault.

There is no absolutely congruent data to draw from and this allows both sides to press an agenda using sloppy figures.

But we all know that

[Guest]

Who is right and who is wrong

Well, that is the rub, isn't it. Clearly, there is no agreement on statistics, and not even agreement on what they mean if we knew they were true.

I come down this way.

• Evil people exist, and pose a risk to others.
  
• Laws cannot stop them.
  
• The police can not be depended upon to protect the innocent.
  
• People have a right to not be violated.
  
• Therefore, people need to be allowed to protect themselves.
  
• Guns exist, and again, laws cannot prevent them, and are ineffective at keeping them out of the hands of the lawless
  
• Since a potential victim might be at the mercy of several assailents, it is mandatory that the potential victim be allowed to armed at least as well as his/her attackers
  

To forbid the ownership of powerful weapons, is to deprive the innocent the right to protect themselves. This remains true, no matter what the statistics show. There is some truth in the post Civil war slogan:

"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

[Guest]

We have seen no mention of the criteria which makes a crime violent. For instance in some countries affray is considered violent crime where others it must include physical assault.

Agreed, but for U.S. citizens, we do have good data for judging the effects in our own country I think. Each state is a individual experiment, and what we have seen over and over again, is that when a state chooses to relax laws restricting gun ownership, and especially where ordinary people are permited to carry concealed weapons, the violent crime rate falls, and the method of classifying violent crime, remains a constant. This I think is a much better indicator, that comparing two separate countries which different cultures, beliefs, histories etc.

Had Piers actually wanted to compare countries an arrive at a conclusion objectively, and not choose specific countries to get a predetermined result to support his own viewpoint, he might have also added in Switzerland, where the gun ownership is very high, and violent crime is very low.

[Guest ninhao]

We have seen no mention of the criteria which makes a crime violent. For instance in some countries affray is considered violent crime where others it must include physical assault.

Agreed, but for U.S. citizens, we do have good data for judging the effects in our own country I think. Each state is a individual experiment, and what we have seen over and over again, is that when a state chooses to relax laws restricting gun ownership, and especially where ordinary people are permited to carry concealed weapons, the violent crime rate falls, and the method of classifying violent crime, remains a constant. This I think is a much better indicator, that comparing two separate countries which different cultures, beliefs, histories etc.

Had Piers actually wanted to compare countries an arrive at a conclusion objectively, and not choose specific countries to get a predetermined result to support his own viewpoint, he might have also added in Switzerland, where the gun ownership is very high, and violent crime is very low.

Yes I agree this is a more logical way to assess USA gun crime situation.

[The_Patriot21]

I like the guy doing the fact check-hes right, its better to look at percentages, not just the numbers. I find it amusing, however, that liberals like piers morgan-cannot even let their opponents speak-they have to constantly interrupt halfway through, and usually without an intelligent reply, just to call them a liar. I Enjoyed Pratts ability to keep his calm, and not insult back-I can respect him for that, as well as 100% agree with the stance hes making.

[Guest]

I am surprised that it took you this long to make your way here pat, since you mentioned the debate technique of Piers, I might as well mention one thing he kept saying that made me giggle, in spite of the solemn topic. He mentioned several times that an AR-15 can fire 100 rounds per minute. What made me giggle was his assertion that that is equivalent to killing 100 people per minute. To bad he cant stick to actual facts, instead of sensationalistic claims. I can see where he is coming from, his idea that no civilian needs that sort of fire power. I actually think that argumet has some merit, but I also think that is not for him to decide for others. What I don ot understand about his quest, is why he is so concerned about the reletively few people who die from weapons like an AR-15, compared with the larger number who are murdered by other means. Why is it that these people cannot fathom, that is is not the means, not the weapon, that is the proble, but the criminals and mentally ill people who are the problem, and who will not be stopped by some law restricting there access (if it even works at all) to a specific weapon. Are they really going to say: "AR-15s are getting too hard to get, so I guess I won't kill anyone after all"? Does anyone really beleive that?