First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Post Reply A moment of silence for the 93 million Americans that died from gun violence today
21341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Nasigno wrote:
In the current context of how it is happening, no there is no reasonable level you can promote that will actually make any degree of measurable change to the loss of life to homicide.

You are right, I do not support gun control as it is not an answer as its not the problem, the problem is people killing people. It's already illegal so no law is gonna make it more illegal.

So fundamentally you have a problem that cannot be totally fixed and appealing emotion to it is just basically doing nothing. It's great to have feelings, pass a law, do whatever but at the end of it. What has it done? Nothing is the answer.

Emotion is not a tool to bring to debating legislation. That just brings rhetoric and appeals that in this argument anyone against you is for people dying. It closes to all possibilities outside what you feel is right. I'm not going to run on that argument as it is just an emotional hype with no tolerance or capability to listen.

This also ignores the fact that you have to accept people are going to die, and that people are going to break the law. The law exists because people have done it, or will do it again. You have to accept this and make for reasonable levels of what is expected. Emotional and idealistic goals need not be pushes as the expected goal, aiming to reduce or keep a low norm is far more plausible.

So again, are you going to be realistic or idealistic?


See, I do think that is a fair conversation to have. "What will the actual effect of policy changes be?" It's a fair question to ask and one that should be asked before enacting policy. I try to analyze policy by performing a cost/benefit analysis. I look at the negatives that the policy brings and weigh them against the positives. Using that information, I come to my conclusion.

That is why I took issue with your original post. It wasn't that you were utilizing a cost/benefit analysis, instead, you were looking at hypothetical benefits and saying "it only affects less that 1%". If a hypothetical piece of legislation can improve the lives of 1% of the population with no cost, that is a hugely important and beneficial piece of legislation that should be put into place. The question that should be asked is not "what is the scope of the benefits and do they meet some literally impossible standard", it should be "do the benefits outweigh the costs".

As for what further legislation seeks to accomplish, no one is expecting 100% of crime to be eliminated and I'd say the vast majority of people who argue for gun control are not arguing for the elimination of guns.

And as for emotion, I don't think you understand me. I am not arguing an appeal to emotion. I am arguing that the government's fundamental job is to serve the people and that means acting to protect them when possible.


Let me pose a hypothetical (note, this is hypothetical):

A law is proposed which limits gun ownership for people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors.
All Universities who projected the effects of this law saw a statistically significant decrease in homicide rates and no hidden drawbacks.

Would you support this law?

Rujikin wrote:

If you take away firearms you have fewer gun crimes but they just switch the method of killing so you've effectively done nothing but change it from gun crimes to bombs, knives, and blunt objects. When you do that a grandma has no chance of opposing a violent gang invading her home. If she had a gun she could oppose them and repel them, possibly killing a couple in the process and helping society (oh wait I guess that adds to gun deaths that suuuuuucks).


I'm sorry, I can't not say something.

Do you notice anything with your graph there? Here, let me draw some lines on it:



Notice anything now?

While "Knife/Sharp Instrument" increased by about 4 or 5, "Firearm" decreased by 14 or 15.

Now, I don't care to get into a big debate about the inversely proportional relationship between different manners of homicide, I just want to point out that your "evidence" doesn't make quite as strong of a case as you seem to think it does.


If all you care about is murder then yes your right. However that was merely homicides it doesn't tell the whole story. The rest of the story is the rise in criminals being able to do as they please because good citizens cannot resist them. This is all from the Australian Institute for criminology, they banned guns btw.




418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:
.
Let me pose a hypothetical (note, this is hypothetical):

A law is proposed which limits gun ownership for people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors.
All Universities who projected the effects of this law saw a statistically significant decrease in homicide rates and no hidden drawbacks.

Would you support this law?


The thing is, most violence against people is considered a felony making it already illegal to own a firearm in the first place.

Such as domestic abuse, homicide, felony level assault, restraining orders, drug abuse, mentally defunct, and any other crime that is a felony.

So that is proposing another law that is already on the books. Unless you can name a crime that is both violent and not considered a felony, or meeting to the context in the above.
14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

Rujikin wrote:

If all you care about is murder then yes your right. However that was merely homicides it doesn't tell the whole story. The rest of the story is the rise in criminals being able to do as they please because good citizens cannot resist them. This is all from the Australian Institute for criminology, they banned guns btw.


Its always hard to get into these conversations because its such a big rabbit hole to go down. I bring up one point and you bring up another ad infinitum.

That said, I'll say a few things. First of all, Australia's stats system is garbage. I'm not sure why its so trash tier, but it is. It really presents very few statistics on assault and the ones it does (such as the one in your post) aren't controlled for population size.

Anyways, lets get to your point: Assault has been steadily increasing. Well, there are a few things confounding this data. One would be the victimization data. Look at the data from 2008:

-527,400 (3.1%) people were victims of at least one physical assault
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C153E64EDD32A47DCA2576CD00184756/$File/45300_2008-09.pdf

Now look at the most recent data from 2015:
-2.4% (462,200) experienced at least one physical assault
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0

And check out the summary on that 2015-2016 page:

The results from the 2015–16 survey were similar to those from the 2014–15 survey, with no significant change in the victimisation rates for personal crime. Since 2008–09, there has been a general decline in the victimisation rate for face-to-face threatened assault. There was no clear change in the victimisation rates for physical assault, non face-to-face threatened assault, robbery and sexual assault over the same time period.


So, you have more reported assaults, but fewer victims of assault? What does that mean? Well, from what I can tell, there are two main factors. The first is repeated victimization. Data from 2005 shows that 1 in 4 victims of assault were victimized multiple times. Data from 2015-2016 shows that this has increased to 1 in 3. That means we are seeing more serial victims but not necessarily more victims. Two, is that the data you showed is data from the police, while the data I showed is victimization data which doesn't require a report (similar to FBI vs CDC data in the USA). You will see in my data a clear increase in crime reporting, with 44.7% of physical assault being reported in '08 and 54.9% being reported in '15. On its own, that should account for a 26% increase in "reported assaults" assuming a flatline of actual assaults between 2008 and 2015.

Additionally, other crimes have been steadily decreasing. Homicide is trending downwards, robbery is trending downwards, and motor vehicle theft is at an all time low.

With all of those factors under consideration, I don't think it is accurate to say that Australia is becoming a gun-less Wild West (my words, not yours). The situation is far more complex than that, but overall, it seems they have been seeing a pretty consistent decrease in most crime, even possibly assault, although the data on that is a bit confusing.


Nasigno wrote:


sundin13 wrote:
.
Let me pose a hypothetical (note, this is hypothetical):

A law is proposed which limits gun ownership for people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors.
All Universities who projected the effects of this law saw a statistically significant decrease in homicide rates and no hidden drawbacks.

Would you support this law?


The thing is, most violence against people is considered a felony making it already illegal to own a firearm in the first place.

Such as domestic abuse, homicide, felony level assault, restraining orders, drug abuse, mentally defunct, and any other crime that is a felony.

So that is proposing another law that is already on the books. Unless you can name a crime that is both violent and not considered a felony, or meeting to the context in the above.


Do you understand what a hypothetical is? xD

Anyways, violent misdemeanors! They do exist!

There are two primary violent misdemeanor classifications. The first is simple assault. Basically simple assault is an assault which doesn't involve a deadly weapon and doesn't result in severe injuries. So, if you got into a fight and threw some punches, you are probably guilty of simple assault (assuming no self-defense). The second is misdemeanor domestic violence. This one is pretty much like simple assault in a domestic situation. If you clock your spouse, you are probably guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence.
Humms 
11787 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 6/17/17
Good. Im glad, we need to thin out the heard, I'm thinking at least 100 million more people.

When people have access to guns, people die, people decide to give themselves power they never had in the first place.

I hope more people die because of guns, I want to see it happen until the day I die. I'm genuinely happy about this statement, because we can never turn this situation around, all for greed, the greediest planet in the universe with no shame or decency.

"You don't like it? Too bad" I'll always remember This, because it just goes to show, people don't give a fuck about their own kind, we have been taught to hate another for the sake of greed. What kind of a world do we want to live in?

I don't think I'll ever move from Canada.........
1504 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / United States
Offline
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Laura_Bodewig wrote:

And while you're unwilling to have a discussion on those things, you are perfectly ok with legislating a tool you don't understand with morals you're unwilling to discuss. My point of view truly is the most logical when compared to your Judeo Christian morality (which is barely a moral code anyways). Empathy (and emotion in general) leads to poor and illogical reason and decisions.


You serious? You are really trying to stand behind the idea that death doesn't matter? I don't think any single person in office would agree with that position. Under that logic, we might as well do away with our entire penal code.

"Oh, you just murdered someone? Who cares? Everybody is going to die someday. Have a good day sir."

You are saying that policy should not exist to protect life. That means we can do away with OSHA, we can do away with vehicle safety regulations, legalize murder and other crimes against persons, we can throw out speed limits, and immediately halt all medical research.

You are arguing a position that completely upends virtually all of society. It is the most basic assumption in debating and while I'm fine with you personally holding that position, it is absolutely ludicrous to try to bring that perspective into any debate which extends outside of abstract philosophical pontification.


No. Killing someone is still wrong, simply from the basis of it has a detrimental effect on Society and the race as a whole. Also, Speed limits should be done away with. Speed does not and has not killed. Distracted Driving and DUIs do.

But sure, continue to try to legislate based on feelings. Feelings are what got Trump elected so you must absolutely love him. Feelings were also used to legislate by the Nazi Party. Feelings are what caused the debacle in the Middle East, Korean War, Vietnam and so forth. Seems like feelings are on an absolute roll for good decisions.


Also, I'm stating that when you truly think about it death does not matter, and unless it's someone close to you, it doesn't matter to you either.
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

Laura_Bodewig wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Laura_Bodewig wrote:

And while you're unwilling to have a discussion on those things, you are perfectly ok with legislating a tool you don't understand with morals you're unwilling to discuss. My point of view truly is the most logical when compared to your Judeo Christian morality (which is barely a moral code anyways). Empathy (and emotion in general) leads to poor and illogical reason and decisions.


You serious? You are really trying to stand behind the idea that death doesn't matter? I don't think any single person in office would agree with that position. Under that logic, we might as well do away with our entire penal code.

"Oh, you just murdered someone? Who cares? Everybody is going to die someday. Have a good day sir."

You are saying that policy should not exist to protect life. That means we can do away with OSHA, we can do away with vehicle safety regulations, legalize murder and other crimes against persons, we can throw out speed limits, and immediately halt all medical research.

You are arguing a position that completely upends virtually all of society. It is the most basic assumption in debating and while I'm fine with you personally holding that position, it is absolutely ludicrous to try to bring that perspective into any debate which extends outside of abstract philosophical pontification.


No. Killing someone is still wrong, simply from the basis of it has a detrimental effect on Society and the race as a whole. Also, Speed limits should be done away with. Speed does not and has not killed. Distracted Driving and DUIs do.

But sure, continue to try to legislate based on feelings. Feelings are what got Trump elected so you must absolutely love him. Feelings were also used to legislate by the Nazi Party. Feelings are what caused the debacle in the Middle East, Korea, Vietnam and so forth. Seems like feelings are on an absolute roll for good decisions.


Also, I'm stating that when you truly think about it death does not matter, and unless it's someone close to you, it doesn't matter to you either.


Did you just compare someone to Nazis and North Korea... For giving a shit about death?
1504 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / United States
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Laura_Bodewig wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Laura_Bodewig wrote:

And while you're unwilling to have a discussion on those things, you are perfectly ok with legislating a tool you don't understand with morals you're unwilling to discuss. My point of view truly is the most logical when compared to your Judeo Christian morality (which is barely a moral code anyways). Empathy (and emotion in general) leads to poor and illogical reason and decisions.


You serious? You are really trying to stand behind the idea that death doesn't matter? I don't think any single person in office would agree with that position. Under that logic, we might as well do away with our entire penal code.

"Oh, you just murdered someone? Who cares? Everybody is going to die someday. Have a good day sir."

You are saying that policy should not exist to protect life. That means we can do away with OSHA, we can do away with vehicle safety regulations, legalize murder and other crimes against persons, we can throw out speed limits, and immediately halt all medical research.

You are arguing a position that completely upends virtually all of society. It is the most basic assumption in debating and while I'm fine with you personally holding that position, it is absolutely ludicrous to try to bring that perspective into any debate which extends outside of abstract philosophical pontification.


No. Killing someone is still wrong, simply from the basis of it has a detrimental effect on Society and the race as a whole. Also, Speed limits should be done away with. Speed does not and has not killed. Distracted Driving and DUIs do.

But sure, continue to try to legislate based on feelings. Feelings are what got Trump elected so you must absolutely love him. Feelings were also used to legislate by the Nazi Party. Feelings are what caused the debacle in the Middle East, Korea, Vietnam and so forth. Seems like feelings are on an absolute roll for good decisions.


Also, I'm stating that when you truly think about it death does not matter, and unless it's someone close to you, it doesn't matter to you either.


Did you just compare someone to Nazis and North Korea... For giving a shit about death?


No, I compared someone trying to legislate based on feelings, to other people who have done the same.
Posted 6/17/17
Suicide is illegal. Survive and expect a hefty fine.
14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

Laura_Bodewig wrote:


No, I compared someone trying to legislate based on feelings, to other people who have done the same.


Okay, stop. This is nonsense and either you know it or you are tremendously obtuse.

"Aiming to protect citizens" is not legislation based on feeling, it is the fundamental purpose of government. Governments exist to protect the citizens, be it from external threats or the threats that exist in the absence of order. This is why the government operates the military: to protect from external threats. This is why the government operates the police force: to maintain order. This is why the government creates a penal code, prison systems, pension systems, funding systems, transportations systems, infrastructure etc.. It is to protect and improve the lives of citizens

Stop acting like such a fundamental and basic perspective is somehow ridiculous. You are the one who is challenging the norm. You are the one who is bringing bizarre opinions to the table. There is no "appeal to emotion" in asserting the fundamental purpose of government is to protect the citizens.

Quit being so full of yourself.

Heres a quote from ushistory.org:



GOVERNMENTs almost certainly originated with the need to protect people from conflicts and to provide law and order. [...] Whatever the reasons, governments first evolved as people discovered that protection was easier if they stayed together in groups and if they all agreed that one (or some) in the group should have more power than others. This recognition is the basis of SOVEREIGNTY, or the right of a group (later a country) to be free of outside interference. [...] A country, then, needs to not only protect its citizens from one another, but it needs to organize to prevent outside attack.
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

Laura_Bodewig wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Laura_Bodewig wrote:

No. Killing someone is still wrong, simply from the basis of it has a detrimental effect on Society and the race as a whole. Also, Speed limits should be done away with. Speed does not and has not killed. Distracted Driving and DUIs do.

But sure, continue to try to legislate based on feelings. Feelings are what got Trump elected so you must absolutely love him. Feelings were also used to legislate by the Nazi Party. Feelings are what caused the debacle in the Middle East, Korea, Vietnam and so forth. Seems like feelings are on an absolute roll for good decisions.


Also, I'm stating that when you truly think about it death does not matter, and unless it's someone close to you, it doesn't matter to you either.


Did you just compare someone to Nazis and North Korea... For giving a shit about death?


No, I compared someone trying to legislate based on feelings, to other people who have done the same.


No, that is not what you're doing when making the apples-to-origami comparison that someone trying to legislate based on protecting their fucking citizens to nazism.

Christ, every time I think I've heard the least sensible thing this forum has to offer there go people like you either trolling or worse, doing this in sincerity.
29880 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

MakotoKamui wrote:


Steelmonk wrote:


MakotoKamui wrote:

HAHA! Someone misspoke about how many people die from a thing! That's hilarious.

So. Just curious, how many gun deaths do you find acceptable? I mean, the 93 million mark is high enough for you to ask people to press F for, but at what level do you worry?


Which is why fire arms training should be universally mandated, and all citizens required to be armed. It would be a very civil law abiding society


Oh, I totally agree with the training. If more people would realize the bare basics of "the gun is always loaded. Even if you just unloaded it, it's still loaded. Never point it at something you aren't willing to kill (even if your finger is nowhere near the trigger), and yes, it is still loaded", we'd have a lot fewer problems. Personally, I like refresher courses when it comes to firearms. I don't want to get complacent with something designed to take a life.

Not sure everyone should be armed, though. I enjoy the skill of shooting, but considering most people don't train - and states are making laws even looser about licenses and such - I'm not sure I'd want that. Much like when people are driving, I'd like them to have enough skill that they don't run into me on the road.. or into my house. That's rare, but does happen, and that's an object designed to get you from point A to point B. With weapons, well.. an armed society might be a scared society, but unless they know what they're doing, it won't necessarily be a polite society.


Nope a fully armed and martially trained society is the most free. I believe that:
Every citizen should be trained to understand math to at least trigonometry and is "Fully" literate, with one marginally spoken second language
All citizens are trained in basic and advanced first aid
All citizens are required to vote or you get fined according to your tax bracket
All citizens serve 2 years in the military, peace corps or some other training/ travel mixed with government service. This gets the kids out into the world.
Every household is required to maintain 1 fire arm per every 2 occupants, subsidized by the government for those who can't afford trigger locks and firearms.


Higher education and martial training with a strong production economy makes a stable country
21341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

If all you care about is murder then yes your right. However that was merely homicides it doesn't tell the whole story. The rest of the story is the rise in criminals being able to do as they please because good citizens cannot resist them. This is all from the Australian Institute for criminology, they banned guns btw.


Its always hard to get into these conversations because its such a big rabbit hole to go down. I bring up one point and you bring up another ad infinitum.

That said, I'll say a few things. First of all, Australia's stats system is garbage. I'm not sure why its so trash tier, but it is. It really presents very few statistics on assault and the ones it does (such as the one in your post) aren't controlled for population size.

Anyways, lets get to your point: Assault has been steadily increasing. Well, there are a few things confounding this data. One would be the victimization data. Look at the data from 2008:

-527,400 (3.1%) people were victims of at least one physical assault
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C153E64EDD32A47DCA2576CD00184756/$File/45300_2008-09.pdf

Now look at the most recent data from 2015:
-2.4% (462,200) experienced at least one physical assault
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0

And check out the summary on that 2015-2016 page:

The results from the 2015–16 survey were similar to those from the 2014–15 survey, with no significant change in the victimisation rates for personal crime. Since 2008–09, there has been a general decline in the victimisation rate for face-to-face threatened assault. There was no clear change in the victimisation rates for physical assault, non face-to-face threatened assault, robbery and sexual assault over the same time period.


So, you have more reported assaults, but fewer victims of assault? What does that mean? Well, from what I can tell, there are two main factors. The first is repeated victimization. Data from 2005 shows that 1 in 4 victims of assault were victimized multiple times. Data from 2015-2016 shows that this has increased to 1 in 3. That means we are seeing more serial victims but not necessarily more victims. Two, is that the data you showed is data from the police, while the data I showed is victimization data which doesn't require a report (similar to FBI vs CDC data in the USA). You will see in my data a clear increase in crime reporting, with 44.7% of physical assault being reported in '08 and 54.9% being reported in '15. On its own, that should account for a 26% increase in "reported assaults" assuming a flatline of actual assaults between 2008 and 2015.

Additionally, other crimes have been steadily decreasing. Homicide is trending downwards, robbery is trending downwards, and motor vehicle theft is at an all time low.

With all of those factors under consideration, I don't think it is accurate to say that Australia is becoming a gun-less Wild West (my words, not yours). The situation is far more complex than that, but overall, it seems they have been seeing a pretty consistent decrease in most crime, even possibly assault, although the data on that is a bit confusing.


Every time they are assaulted they are a victim. Just because you were assaulted that year doesn't mean your not a victim the 2nd or 3rd time.


You will see in my data a clear increase in crime reporting, with 44.7% of physical assault being reported in '08 and 54.9% being reported in '15. On its own, that should account for a 26% increase in "reported assaults" assuming a flatline of actual assaults between 2008 and 2015.


54.9-44.7 is only 10.2. Your missing 15.8%. Your assuming FAR too much there to even be a valid assumption.

Crimes have been dropping across most western countries since the 90's, more in the US than others. Australia had an increase during the same period. The only thing that has been helping Australia was they reformed their prison systems to help re-integrate criminals which has been pretty successful.
14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

Rujikin wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Its always hard to get into these conversations because its such a big rabbit hole to go down. I bring up one point and you bring up another ad infinitum.

That said, I'll say a few things. First of all, Australia's stats system is garbage. I'm not sure why its so trash tier, but it is. It really presents very few statistics on assault and the ones it does (such as the one in your post) aren't controlled for population size.

Anyways, lets get to your point: Assault has been steadily increasing. Well, there are a few things confounding this data. One would be the victimization data. Look at the data from 2008:

-527,400 (3.1%) people were victims of at least one physical assault
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C153E64EDD32A47DCA2576CD00184756/$File/45300_2008-09.pdf

Now look at the most recent data from 2015:
-2.4% (462,200) experienced at least one physical assault
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0

And check out the summary on that 2015-2016 page:

The results from the 2015–16 survey were similar to those from the 2014–15 survey, with no significant change in the victimisation rates for personal crime. Since 2008–09, there has been a general decline in the victimisation rate for face-to-face threatened assault. There was no clear change in the victimisation rates for physical assault, non face-to-face threatened assault, robbery and sexual assault over the same time period.


So, you have more reported assaults, but fewer victims of assault? What does that mean? Well, from what I can tell, there are two main factors. The first is repeated victimization. Data from 2005 shows that 1 in 4 victims of assault were victimized multiple times. Data from 2015-2016 shows that this has increased to 1 in 3. That means we are seeing more serial victims but not necessarily more victims. Two, is that the data you showed is data from the police, while the data I showed is victimization data which doesn't require a report (similar to FBI vs CDC data in the USA). You will see in my data a clear increase in crime reporting, with 44.7% of physical assault being reported in '08 and 54.9% being reported in '15. On its own, that should account for a 26% increase in "reported assaults" assuming a flatline of actual assaults between 2008 and 2015.

Additionally, other crimes have been steadily decreasing. Homicide is trending downwards, robbery is trending downwards, and motor vehicle theft is at an all time low.

With all of those factors under consideration, I don't think it is accurate to say that Australia is becoming a gun-less Wild West (my words, not yours). The situation is far more complex than that, but overall, it seems they have been seeing a pretty consistent decrease in most crime, even possibly assault, although the data on that is a bit confusing.


Every time they are assaulted they are a victim. Just because you were assaulted that year doesn't mean your not a victim the 2nd or 3rd time.


You will see in my data a clear increase in crime reporting, with 44.7% of physical assault being reported in '08 and 54.9% being reported in '15. On its own, that should account for a 26% increase in "reported assaults" assuming a flatline of actual assaults between 2008 and 2015.


54.9-44.7 is only 10.2. Your missing 15.8%. Your assuming FAR too much there to even be a valid assumption.

Crimes have been dropping across most western countries since the 90's, more in the US than others. Australia had an increase during the same period. The only thing that has been helping Australia was they reformed their prison systems to help re-integrate criminals which has been pretty successful.


-Every time they are assaulted they are a victim:

While that is true, serial victimizations tend to paint a different picture of crime than single victimizations. It typically means that we are seeing someone being victimized by someone they know such as a family member, an ex or a spouse, not roving bands of thugs. Seeing a high percentage of repeat victimizations beside a low percentage of victims means that theres not so much a problem with "criminals" as much as with the domestic violence response and police/court systems.

-54.9-44.7 is only 10.2:

Okay, I'll explain my math. What I was talking about is how the "police report" figures interact with the victimization figures. Lets assume that there are 1000 victimizations per year for simplicity's sake. In 2008 you have 447 victims reported to the police (which is what you see in your data). In 2015 you have 549 victims reported to police (which is what you see in your data). Using only the police report figures, there is a 22.8% change in "assault" between those two years (note: the rounding that I did previously did slightly change the data. I said 26% before, but 22.8% is a more accurate representation.).

Here's the math written out: 100/447*549=122.8%, which can be rephrased as a 22.8% increase.

So, if you are just looking at reported figures without taking into account the increase in assault reporting, you will see a 22.8% change over this time period, assuming that there is a flatline in actual victimizations. This throws a strong bias into your trend lines. Then, account for the fact that the population of Australia has risen from 21.3 to 23.8million, which is an 11.7% population growth and suddenly, the upward trend of reported assaults isn't quite as stark.
1157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

Steelmonk wrote:

Nope a fully armed and martially trained society is the most free. I believe that:
Every citizen should be trained to understand math to at least trigonometry and is "Fully" literate, with one marginally spoken second language
All citizens are trained in basic and advanced first aid
All citizens are required to vote or you get fined according to your tax bracket
All citizens serve 2 years in the military, peace corps or some other training/ travel mixed with government service. This gets the kids out into the world.
Every household is required to maintain 1 fire arm per every 2 occupants, subsidized by the government for those who can't afford trigger locks and firearms.


Higher education and martial training with a strong production economy makes a stable country



You're starting to sound like a God damn commie. Get out of my car
1504 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / United States
Offline
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

sundin13 wrote:


Laura_Bodewig wrote:


No, I compared someone trying to legislate based on feelings, to other people who have done the same.


Okay, stop. This is nonsense and either you know it or you are tremendously obtuse.

"Aiming to protect citizens" is not legislation based on feeling, it is the fundamental purpose of government. Governments exist to protect the citizens, be it from external threats or the threats that exist in the absence of order. This is why the government operates the military: to protect from external threats. This is why the government operates the police force: to maintain order. This is why the government creates a penal code, prison systems, pension systems, funding systems, transportations systems, infrastructure etc.. It is to protect and improve the lives of citizens

Stop acting like such a fundamental and basic perspective is somehow ridiculous. You are the one who is challenging the norm. You are the one who is bringing bizarre opinions to the table. There is no "appeal to emotion" in asserting the fundamental purpose of government is to protect the citizens.

Quit being so full of yourself.

Heres a quote from ushistory.org:



GOVERNMENTs almost certainly originated with the need to protect people from conflicts and to provide law and order. [...] Whatever the reasons, governments first evolved as people discovered that protection was easier if they stayed together in groups and if they all agreed that one (or some) in the group should have more power than others. This recognition is the basis of SOVEREIGNTY, or the right of a group (later a country) to be free of outside interference. [...] A country, then, needs to not only protect its citizens from one another, but it needs to organize to prevent outside attack.


Yes however you believe that protecting the citizens means disarming them. You believe something that causes a minority of deaths is an epidemic meanwhile you're probably pounding down McDonalds and slowly killing yourself via the multitude of health issues that fast food causes.

You are choosing to try to have your government protect it's people, by focusing on something that affects an exceedingly small percentage of people.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.