London murder rate rises higher than NY City

The part that are the more murderous ones.

We've had readily available guns for many many years in America. Go back and look at when were committing a lower rate of murders, and track the demographic changes since then.

 

So you don't know and want me to do the work for you. Understood.

You remind me of a particular Christian proof for the existence of God, which goes like this:

How do we know God exists? Because the bible says so.
How do we know the bible is true? Because God wrote it.

 

Actually we did used to be. Between 1993 and 2012, the violent crime rate (homicide, robbery, rape and aggravated assault) in the United States dropped by 48 percent. And violent crime, a chronic problem in this country, has had its ups and downs.
In response to the rise in violent crime in the 1840s, the U.S.spent more money on law enforcement in the 1840s than almost any other country in the world, but was still . unable to curb the steady rise in violence that continued until the late 1930s. after that, it fell off , but rose again in the "60s. http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=hsshonors In analyzing the demographics behind these shifts, Sasinowski concludes: "when urban demographics, race and foreign-born status were
combined, race is the only factor that does not seem to have a significant effect on the homicide rate."

 

I don't need you to do any work for me. The question was posed is America a more murderous society than others. I answered that some of it is yes. You can work that out any way you like.

And I'm not Christian so I can't follow your bible and God drivel. But if you want to take this into some other orbit, be my guest. We're used to it.

The TREND shown in the data used in this thread was the fact that right now NYC is spending more money fighting crime than London is. The resulting crossover point is whats making the news. London is trending UP in crime and NYC is going down. In 3 months we can look at the data again. There won't be less guns in NYC in 3 months. Maybe it was a blip or maybe it will be a continued trend. It has nothing to do with god or religion or guns. In London the more murderous individuals are resorting to knives instead. The less murderous individuals we won't be seeing in crime statistics.

 

A study by Falk et al in Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014; 49(4): 559–571 found that in Sweden 1% of the population accounted for 63% of violent crime. Being male, early onset of violent criminality, personality disorders, and substance use disorders were the most important risk factors specific to persistence in violence. But the study did not probe broader cultural and sociodemographic factors bearing on the phenomenon. As mentioned, homicidal violence in the United States is nothing new,and it's currently on a downward trajectory, except for the mass murders. If I were to focus on the roots of this phenomenon, I'd look at (1) the U.S gun culture, especially three cultural components: (a) the wild west frontier legacy; (b) the Southern honor culture; and (c) the U.S. entertainment industry ( Hollywood, TV, computer games, etc.) that has glamorized violence. For socio-demographic and structural factors, I'd look at the successive waves of immigration in our "Nation of Immigrants" and nativist reactions to them; (2) social inequality and conspicuous consumption; (3) changes in the percentage of twenty-something males in the overall population; and (4) a powerful lobby obstructing measures to control availability of guns.

 

No, the question was are Americans more murderous and savage than citizens from other developed nations asked in the context of what Toggle was saying. You answered vaguely about demographics, and when questioned further you indulged in circular reason and told me to 'track' it myself. Perhaps you need to read more carefully before responding. In any case, you didn't evince much knowledge on the subject you chose to participate in nor an understanding of the conversation itself.

Neither am I. The point was showing your circular reasoning. I think that was pretty obvious. I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse or aren't interested in engaging in an honest conversation. If the latter is the case, perhaps refrain from answering questions that weren't directed to you. I'm perfectly happy for people to do that, but they really should understand what is being asked first.

 

Still looks after than America to me. I don't buy the whole "since anything can kill you guns should have no laws" argument. If I practice a martial art I can probably get that man with a knife on the ground before he knows what happened. Maybe I get cut but that's better than bullet holes. And the added bonus is that the martial art demands more mentally and physically than a gun.

It seems like any major city to me. I doubt knives are as much of an issue in small towns. I see a lot of similarities to America in that they think they need the knife because A. it's scary B. everyone else gas one. Same logic as needing guns here. "Bad guys" have a gun so I need one and if they know I have a gun they might be too scared to fight me.

 

Something that harms few people is not a special risk to society.

The Guncite links analyzed the data that they presented.

It is the case with the US.

Most other high income countries have a strong social safety net so don't have high poverty areas to begin with.

They are relevant in discussions that include the US because our high poverty areas are comparable to underdeveloped countries.

Analysis: Gun availability has only a weak correlation with homicide rates.

 

Gun rights advocates have no need to obfuscate. The statistics are clear that gun availability has only a weak correlation with homicide rates.

The high poverty areas.

 

But one which is particularly threatening to the social order, especially when the lives of children are concerned.

All carefully prepared and selected by pro-gun propagandists.

Comparing low income areas within industrial countries to rates for low income Third World countries is obviously unsound. Anyone who tries it exposes himself as a propagandist.

Yes they are, and they're published in peer-reviewed journals instead of propaganda sites for the gun lobby.

 

Obfuscation is literally the basis of your arguments. If one could call them arguments; they're more statements of belief backed with laughable amounts of self praise.

 

What a disturbingly callous comment. It certainly is, when mass murder is involved, especially when kids are the victims.

I didn't see a single Pearson's r or any other measure of strength of relationship or even tests of statistical significance. Besides, the source is an untrustworthy mouthpiece for the gun lobby.

Bullshit! A low income area within a high income country is not comparable to a low income country.

So when asked for analysis, you simply assert "Analysis". Is this satire? Show us the Pearson's r's.

 

I almost spit my drink out when I read this.

 

The social order is not threatened by a small handful of deaths.

No such selection. The list of countries was as broad as possible given available data.

Not when the areas are comparable to each other.

Nonsense.

That is incorrect. Comparisons of homicide rates between countries shows very clearly that gun availability has weak correlation with homicide rates.

 

Wrong. My arguments are based on facts and statistics.

Backed with facts and statistics.

 

Pretending that a truthful statement is callous does not invalidate its truthfulness.

That is incorrect. A death by murder is no worse than if the victim had been killed by some other means.

You saw data showing that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

What you're saying is that facts don't matter when they are presented by people that you disagree with.

It is if the high income country has little in the way of a social safety net.

You asked for an analysis, and I provided you with one.

 

You typed the word ANALYSIS and stated your conclusion. No statistical analysis. No r=.? I've come to the conclusion that your mission is to spread fake news in a desperate effort at damage control on the gun issue, and that you'll continue to deliver NRA talking points in robotic fashion in hopes someone will be misled and those who aren't will be worn down by attrition. I'm done with the game. Continue your rants, and hope someone listens.

 

The analysis is that there is only weak correlation between gun availability and homicide rates.

All of the facts that I posted are completely true.

There is no need for damage control when the facts prove that you are right.

Posting the truth doesn't mislead anyone.

 

Sure it does! It's been working for the liberals for years now.

 

Naaaa, classic liberals are all about the truth. Leftist stooges are all about the narrative/agenda. Leftists "win" debates with strategies and tactics that don't have to rely on truth or facts. For them "winning" is all that matters. Even if that means shouting the loudest to shut the truth down.

We all have a front row seat these days to observe the leftist tactics for replacing debate with hostility, absurdity and ad hominem plastering.

To the thread I would ask; Who is being killed? Who is doing the killing? And Why are they killing? After knowing these facts ,the weapons used might be of interest. Leading with the weapon seems like poor investigation methodology.