Homicide Rates Before Guns? [Pic+]

Submitted by: 5cats 3 years ago Science

The the arrival of guns in Europe bring peace or slaughter? History is interesting!
There are 99 comments:
Male 14,330
Don`t ever expect any plebs in the UK to comprehend the need to posses arms. Unless it to protect royals....

Or in a violence prone area.... or an aggressive cow ROFL....
0
Reply
Male 14,330
LOL!! Mexicos exteme violence is from American guns now ROFL!! Whew yep no other suppliers and factors. That right there is a desperate excuse and the logic of ban it and everything will be ok.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]Then you`ve failed to do that as well since the US homicide is 4 times higher than Australia`s. But congratulations, you`re officially an idiot.[/quote]
An idiots opinion - forgive me for not taking it seriously. Congratulations on failing to provide any data to reinforce your claims and failing to prepare a logical argument.

You earned it my friend.
0
Reply
Male 36,542
Well, aside from ONE person, it`s been a delightful conversation!

I just thought it was interesting, since we all have different ideas about "how life was" way back then. Some ways better, but most ways? Worse!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]they kept homicide records back in 1000 A.D.?[/quote]

Yes. In England, anyway. It was a very organised country, although the really high level of bureaucracy came after the Normans had finished smashing their conquest into place. So from ~1080 or so. There are miles of records still existing today. I mean that literally - one archive alone has more than 100 miles of shelf space (and therefore a lot more than 100 miles of records) and there are many archives. The bulk of the records, especially that far back, are about law, money or both. There`s not much left from before ~1200 (parchment is durable but far from indestructable), but there`s some and there are enough references to establish that they did keep at least some records of court cases back in 1000AD.

Any national homicide rate in 1000 AD is mostly a guess, though. There were local records, almost all of them lost over the centuries.
0
Reply
Male 427
@turdburgler
one more idiot..
The numbers count when you`re comparing the same thing. So far all that you have is several statistics that measure different things with the exception of homicide rate which shows the same trend in both countries but Australia has a much lower rate.

All you idiots keep comparing apples and oranges and don`t even bother reading what the statistics say. So far all the data points to you being wrong.
0
Reply
Male 427
@HumanAction
"Not once have I claimed this. Rather, I`m refuting your implication that a country with a gun ban would experience less violent crime than a country without. I have no idea how you`ve reached the conclusion that I am making the argument you assume."

Then you`ve failed to do that as well since the US homicide is 4 times higher than Australia`s. But congratulations, you`re officially an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
Any site that heads their page with a statement as definitively inane as...
[quote]"There are more than 22,431 restrictive gun laws in force. Of those, not even one has ever reduced crime."[/quote]
...cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously.
0
Reply
Male 174
Do you really expect us to have confidence in this data?
0
Reply
Male 579
"Anti-Gun folks reject all data that does not support their position", would be a truthful headline.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
they kept homicide records back in 1000 A.D.?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Because the only thing that has changed has been guns, amirite? Lame post, next.
0
Reply
Male 3,949
Also because the flintlocks were so slow most Native Americans preferred to use the flintlocks as clubs not actual firearms. This lead to the creation of the "gunstock war club."


0
Reply
Male 3,949
(cont)

For this reason, the U.S. Army saw them as a major threat since they were being used against settlers and outposts. They tried to reclaim the weapons and in several instances it created horrible massacres like the Wounded Knee Massacre that was caused when a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote refused to give up his rifle because he paid a lot for it. He didn`t understand why they wanted it but when the soldiers tried to grab it, a shot was fired and the whole tribe was massacred by the 7th Cavalry. The English, French, and Spanish also committed massacres against Native Americans and vice-versa. Yet 90% of Native Americans were wiped out because of Small Pox not guns.
0
Reply
Male 3,949
@Marco51: I don`t think their numbers of deaths were recorded during that time. But if you`re insinuating that violent death increase when guns were brought over, i don`t think it had a tremendous difference. In Maryland the Iroquoian tribe Susquehannock were a known warlike tribe constantly attacking before Europeans ever came over. They would attack the mostly peaceful Nanticoke tribes to the south, the Piscataway and Conoy. The Comanche and BlackFoot tribes were also well know war tribes. Although indians were traded guns in the 1600`s they were almost always inferior flintlock muskets. The Indians used these for hunting because you didn`t have to create time consuming arrows or spears. But at that time the Atlatl or bows were still faster and more accurate. The major transition didn`t occur until the 1860`s when the Springfield Rifle and the Winchester Rifle were traded to them. They were accurate and could fire multiple shots.
0
Reply
Male 36,542
@Corydoras87: Hey, it`s just an opinion based on VERY limited intel, ok? But if it showed the opposite? You can bet gun-grabbers would trumpet it from the four hills!

OF COURSE a LOT of stuff was happening around that time: same as today! Yet the GGers are happy to claim ONLY removing guns will SAVE society!

@Maccro51: I can assure you that Native Americans were killing, enslaving and slaughtering each other just as well as every other place on Earth. LONG before the "white men" arrived.

It was the diseases that pre-ceded their arrival that wiped out HALF of some populations... When the Mayflower arrived? Local populations were already decimated for a decade.
0
Reply
Male 3,949
@RecycleElf: I`m not sure, European governments of the 1400`s- early 1700`s, still didn`t provide much more for their citizenry and created a lot more war. Plague outbreaks through the 14th to 17th centuries. Multiple government induced famines and mass starvations due to war and political unrest.

0
Reply
Male 51
Can someone post a graffic showing the count of violent death among native americans related with the arrival of guns with european settlers starting from, let`s say, 16th century ?
I`d like to check something...
0
Reply
Male 642
and of course it was posted by 5cats ^-^cute how desperate the gun community seems to be to cling to "facts" like this.. well I guess some rednecks will actually believe this rubbish.. a statistic prepared by someone who really wants a certain thing to be reality has a pretty high chance to reflect just that.. and everything that could say otherwise is just conveniently taken out of the statistic as "irrelevant"
0
Reply
Male 2,514
Someone obviously needs to learn the difference between causality and coincidence.

Just because global warming rises while the existence of pirates is on the decline, doesn`t mean that the global warming is caused by the decline of pirates.

Or does it???
0
Reply
Male 3,619
I just feel it`s a litle far fetched to grab for debate points in the years around 1100 england. a lot happend then. a lot. we could also make a point of comparing the increase of guns to the general ability of the guvornment to provide better lives for citizens.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Silly conservatives. Facts aren`t for liberals.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Wow. Sure alot of stupidity here from Canoas. Too young to realize it, and too european to admit it.

When your argument is that the numbers don`t count, you are basically saying you don`t have any logic to argue with. Of course numbers would be all that matters when they support your emotionally based pseudo-logic.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]For one, it points to a correlation and not a causation. If you want scientific proof of something, you have to control for any other possible cause of the data trend. For all we know, the advancement of civilization over this time period led to a more settled and less warlike society across Europe, in literally any other possible way.[/quote]

England changed dramatically over that period of time - the great death, the end of feudalism, the renaissance, the industrial revolution...it`s silly to assume that the cause of the change in homicide rates was an increase in the number of guns.

[quote]Second, how accurate can we possibly expect data from the year 1000 to be? Even though the linked blog post suggests that England had "excellent records," in all reality they would have been anything but.[/quote]

1000, not so much, but from ~1100 onwards they were excellent records for law, money or both. Miles of them still exist.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

I`ve heard of willful ignorance but willful stupidity? C`mon.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]only the homicide rate is comparable[/quote]
Wrong again. The sexual assault stats in Australia for 1995 are absolutely comparable to the sexual assault stats in Australia for 2007. There really is no question about it. Likewise, the other data I`ve mentioned is also comparable.

You seem to continue to miss the point. I am not comparing violent crime statistics between two countries (how many times have I said this now?). I am comparing statistics within the same countries from years prior. As in, compare sexual assault in Australia from 1995 to sexual assault in Australia from 2007. Comparable? Yes.

From these year-to-year comparisons, we can conclude whether violent crime within a country has increased or decreased. THEN! We can compare the observations. Simple.

Only a fool would continue to think I am comparing Australian violent crime statistics to the US.
0
Reply
Male 36,542



Bye Bye @Canoas!

Because, in fact, you DID say you`d provide a link. I showed you mine! Why are you so afraid to show me yours?



Note: Chester Brown is a fellow Canadian!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

Still not getting it - I`m stunned. I thought I had written that such that a 5 year old would have made sense of it.

[quote]You have no data regarding the years prior to the gun ban.[/quote]
I don`t need them. I`m not currently making any claims regarding the years prior to 1995. That`s why my data starts in 1995.

[quote]You cannot assert that that the gun ban leads to an increasing crime rate.[/quote]
Not once have I claimed this. Rather, I`m refuting your implication that a country with a gun ban would experience less violent crime than a country without. I have no idea how you`ve reached the conclusion that I am making the argument you assume.

[quote]The parameters you are comparing aren`t really the same thing[/quote]
I`m not comparing the US violent crime statistics to the violent crime statistics of Australia. You can continue to say I am, but I`m not.
0
Reply
Male 427
@5Cats
By forged data I mean the graphic. There`s absolutely no evidence backing it up. Didn`t I say I`d post my link once you provide the sources for that article? You still haven`t managed to do that.


I know very well what a rocket is, but that doesn`t change the fact that you`re retarded enough to think I`m talking about fireworks when I say "rocket" in a debate regarding firearms. Anyone with half a brain would understand perfectly what I meant, yet amazingly you failed to comprehend something so basic.
0
Reply
Male 427
@HumanAction
I`m pretty sure you`re just pretending to be stupid now, but I`ll explain it again.

You have no data regarding the years prior to the gun ban. You cannot assert that that the gun ban leads to an increasing crime rate. Any comparison you`re making right now is completely inconclusive. The parameters you are comparing aren`t really the same thing, only the homicide rate is comparable as it represents the same thing in both countries and it`s showing a similar decline with the exception that Australia`s is several time lower. However, you still can`t make any meaningful observation from the data you provided because you lack data about the years prior to the ban. You have no way of knowing what the ban actually did.

That information is out there if you bother to look, I remember finding it for one of the previous "gun debates" here on IAB. Before you ask why I haven`t posted it yet, I simply have not bothered to look either.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

I really dislike needing to use the "kids voice" with should-be adults. Unfortunately, it seems to be required in order to assist some people through otherwise simple logic.

I`ll be sure to let you know the next time I`m in the UK (that`s where you`re from, yes?); that way I can demonstrate your stupidity in person. Better yet, if you`re ever in Wisconsin, look me up.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]And again, as far as you know the sexual assault rate in US has been tripling every year.[/quote]
Either you`ve completely missed the point or you`re trying to. Let me ask you, can we compare violent crime between Australia and the US? The answer is no.

So, what can we do? Well, we can compare violent crime within a country over a span of time! This tells us if, per capita, the country is becoming more or less violent. Yay!

Hmmm... but what data is there to use? Oh, I know! We can use the official indices for violent crime measurement provided by the respective governments! That`ll surely give us an idea of violent crime trends within a country.

I wonder if we should try to compare the two countries??? NO! Like we already established, we can`t! Instead, we need to decide - based on statistics - for each country whether or not violent crime is increasing.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]So you`re claiming that the ban did nothing to improve crime rates since after the ban the assault rates are increasing even though you have no knowledge of what was happening BEFORE the ban?[/quote]
No, this is not what I`m claiming. Let`s walk through it really slowly so that you are able to stay with us:

From 1995 to 2007, by the commonly measured indices, have violent crime rates increased in Australia? (yes - the answer is yes).
From 1995 to 2007, by the commonly measured indices, have violent crime rates fallen in the US? (yes)
Has a measure been in place to reduce gun ownership in Australia since approximately 1995? (yes).
Has a measure been in place in the US to reduce gun ownership during the same timeframe? (no).

I`m so happy we worked through this.

Which appears more likely?

1. A gun ban has no positive effect of violent crime; or,
2. A gun ban does.
0
Reply
Male 36,542
[quote]The data you provided is inconclusive at best, it does not prove your point.[/quote]
Wrong Again!
YOUR argument is: guns increase crime.
OUR argument is: guns DO NOT increase crime.

In the USA? Guns have INCREASED across the board!
Yet crime has fallen...

In Australia (to use the examples @HumanAction gives us, which you DO NOT dispute) crime has either stayed the same or risen.
- in the SAME time period
- despite the LOWERING of the amount of guns

It`s apples vs apples buddy, your nitpicking notwithstanding the facts.

[quote]You fail tremendously at interpreting basic statistics.[/quote]
How the HELL would YOU know? LMAO!
0
Reply
Male 36,542
[quote]...forged data?[/quote]

WTF are you "on about" now? WHAT "forged data"?

A rocket is a rocket. A rocket launcher is a rocket launcher. An "anti-tank rocket" (panzer shriek, bazooka) or "anti-aircraft rocket" (SAM or SLSAM) are COMPLETELY different!

And a "rocket propelled grenade" (panzerfaust) is YET ANOTHER!

I didn`t know English was your second language, I thought you were a Brit...

But STILL! You have to use the defined words and not YOUR imagined meanings.

Tired of your BS bro... have a good evening, er, day? What time is it in Portugal... oh nevermind.

Do you even understand the difference between a "rocket" and a "missile"? I somehow doubt it...

And POST your link to "firearms existed in 6,000BC" or did you just pull that out of your arse?
0
Reply
Male 427
@HumanAction
So you`re claiming that the ban did nothing to improve crime rates since after the ban the assault rates are increasing even though you have no knowledge of what was happening BEFORE the ban? As far as you know the ban could have reduced crime by 50%.

"Oh boy. We`re not comparing the US rape to Australia`s sexual assault, are we? (Answer: no). We`re showing that the prevalence in Australia has increased since 1995. "
And again, as far as you know the sexual assault rate in US has been tripling every year.


The data you provided is inconclusive at best, it does not prove your point. However, your argument does prove my point: You fail tremendously at interpreting basic statistics.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

Alas! I must depart while still with fair weather. Fear not though - my dim-witted friend - I shall return to continue this shaming.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]The firearm ban was on 1995 and you have no data that indicates any rising or falling trends in crime while firearms were legal.[/quote]
The data is there, you just need to do a little work. What I have demonstrated thus far is that, in spite of having no firearms ban in the US, the rate of change in various violent crimes is superior and preferable in the US. Since Australia has a gun bun, and you have erroneously claimed that "it`s about observing the change that a firearm ban brings to a country". There you go - you`re welcome.

[quote]Also, the sexual assault statistic, for example, does not represent actual rape, it`s any physical assault of a sexual nature.[/quote]
Oh boy. We`re not comparing the US rape to Australia`s sexual assault, are we? (Answer: no). We`re showing that the prevalence in Australia has increased since 1995.

Please do keep up.
0
Reply
Male 427
I checked the US rape thingy..
"Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded."
So ass groping is not included in the US statistic, which makes any comparison meaningless.

It`s also interesting to note that about 66% of the assault in Australia is committed by family members or by people you know.
0
Reply
Male 427
@HumanAction
Your point is proven? I fail to see how that correlates with a firearm ban. The firearm ban was on 1995 and you have no data that indicates any rising or falling trends in crime while firearms were legal.

Also, the sexual assault statistic, for example, does not represent actual rape, it`s any physical assault of a sexual nature. So ass groping can be rising and actual rape declining, you don`t have enough data to compare the australia`s sexual assault with US` forcible
rape.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

For 1995: Australian Bureau of Statistics
For 2007 (See link in right sidebar for more data on individual crimes): Australian Institute of Criminology

Results?

+32.4% Sexual Assaults
+50.0% Assault
-27.8% Homicide

You can find the rest; my point is proven.
0
Reply
Male 427
@HumanAction
No. I`ll admit I`m wrong if reliable data suggests so.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

Not sure on the exact source I used for the US, but this should get you close: FBI

Ran the numbers with this set and got these:

-31.1% Total Violent Crime
-17.5% Forcible Rape
-31.3% Aggravated Assault
-32.9% Robbery
-30.5% Homicide

Pretty close to the other set of data I have, so I assume that both are relatively correct.

Just need to find the data for Australia again now. Only question is, will you admit that you were wrong when I do?
0
Reply
Male 427
"Since the FIRST recorded use of gunpowder in battle wasn`t until 1100? In China? I VERY MUCH DOUBT firearms (or cannon) were used in 6000 BC... they may have "existed" but there`s NO record of their use in combat.
NEVEMIND "widespread use". You get it yet? "

And the proof that this has anything to do with the forged data?
0
Reply
Male 427
@5Cats
"Do you KNOW what a "rocket launcher" is?"
Again, are you seriously this stupid? Can you not understand what I`m referring to when I say rocket launcher? Are you too dumb to grasp a simple concept? Do I have to spell out everything as if you were a 5 year old? Is that it? Because if that`s what you want just say it.

We have a saying here in Portugal, "for a good understander half a word is enough". For you it seems the exact opposite is needed, so what are you exactly?
0
Reply
Male 36,542
ffs, first you`re a "grammar Nazi" and now a "nitpicker"?

Europe didn`t have "widespread use" of firearms until the dates given.

Wiki Says: Your Wrong! (sic)

Since the FIRST recorded use of gunpowder in battle wasn`t until 1100? In China? I VERY MUCH DOUBT firearms (or cannon) were used in 6000 BC... they may have "existed" but there`s NO record of their use in combat.
NEVEMIND "widespread use". You get it yet?

Just as "electricity" has been around for thousands of years, doesn`t mean the ancient Greeks used light bulbs...
(Yes! The Ancient Greeks knew about various kinds of electricity, don`t even -think- about arguing that!)
0
Reply
Male 427
@HumanAction
Post the actual data, not some bullpoo you came up with.
0
Reply
Male 36,542
@Canoas: You cannot possibly be serious! You`re just joking, right?

Do you KNOW what a "rocket launcher" is?
A tube.
That`s all, just a tube.
It can even be made of plastic.

The ROCKET provides the velocity! INTERNALLY!
As opposed to a cannon (or gun of any sort) in which the velocity is EXTERNALLY provided.

Jumping Jesus Christ, you cannot BE that stupid!

Yes you CAN own artillery ammunition in the USA! Firing it legally is a completely different thing ALTOGETHER!

Are you so bereft of facts you`re only left with making shiite up?
0
Reply
Male 427
@5cats
"Um, @Canoas? The graph is the ONLY thing with a listed source! Fail! "
You mean half a screenshot of another graph? I actually want you to answer this question: Are you seriously this stupid?


"He mentions that firearms start appearing around 1200..."

According to another article on the internet, firearms have existed since 6000 B.C.
Oh, you want my sources? I`ll gladly post them after you post that article`s sources.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]then removing them will also remove the declining gun related homicides[/quote]
Did I say gun-related homicides? No, I didn`t, did I? The rate of decline for ALL homicides stagnated. It`s just reading - it`s actually quite easy.

Here are some fun stats for you:

1995-2007 - 31.9% decrease in ALL (that`s for you) homicides in Australia and 31.7% in the US.

During the same time in Australia, assault rose 49.2%, robbery rose 6.2%, and sexual assault rose 29.9%. In fact, all violent crime rose 42.2%.

Let`s compare to similar stats in the US:

In the US, during the same timeframe, aggravated assault fell 32.2%, robbery fell 33.2%, and rape fell 19.2%. In fact, total violent crime fell 31.8%.

Sources used were aic.gov.ua publications and fbi.gov data.

So what you`re advocating is going from a system that is CLEARLY WORKING to one that clearly is not working. Makes sense.
0
Reply
Male 36,542
[quote]By truth you mean a graph with no sources...[/quote]
Um, @Canoas? The graph is the ONLY thing with a listed source! Fail!

[quote]...that doesn`t even remotely correlate with firearm ownership?[/quote]
Um? If you`d BOTHERED to read the SHORT article? He mentions that firearms start appearing around 1200, and become fairly widespread later on. Sorry there`s no ARROWS to point at those details for you, you actually have to USE YOU`RE BRAIN to figure out that after guns start showing up? Murder rates drop.
(sic)

[quote]supplying all firearms anyone can illegally smuggle into the country?[/quote]
The EXACT same thing can be said for ANY country on Earth! About ANY law which restricts ownership of ANYTHING.
Pot for example? Get it yet?
Even "closed societies" have smuggling problems, DUH!
0
Reply
Male 427
@HumanAction
"Am I now correct in understanding that you actually have no data to stand upon?"

As long as your data is correct then I`ll gladly use the same data you do so you don`t accuse me of using bullpoo studies. Post it up.
0
Reply
Male 427
@HumanAction
"Compared to other nations, Australia`s rate of decline stagnated immediately following their ban."

That is indeed true. The problem is that you`re too stupid to understand what it even means. If firearms are causing an increased homicide rate, even if it`s declining, then removing them will also remove the declining gun related homicides. It`s pretty simple.. how you fail to grasp this concept is beyond me.

@5Cats
"In America (and MANY other countries) you CAN INDEED own: tanks, machine guns, explosives, rockets (of various kinds, eh? sometimes called "fireworks")."

You can own tanks, but you don`t have access to the ammunition. You can have explosives, but not high-grade explosives. You can own machine-guns in some states, but the legal ones stopped being manufactured 30 years ago and are extremely limited and expensive. A firework is not a rocket launcher, any retard knows that.. I`m surprised you don`t. A
0
Reply
Male 36,542
@HOBYandy: It`s just an accumulation of averages dude...

I imagine they check it against monthly reported statistics, eh? It`s just the same as every other counter on the internets...

@Andrew155: Exactly! The SCotUS used to agree that slavery was OK (according to the constitution) now they think otherwise.

It`s ENTIRELY up to the SCotUS to "interpret" it and up to the 3 Offices (President, House and Senate) to enforce OR change it.

Obama`s "plan" of just IGNORING it is really NOT a valid option... unless EVERYONE ELSE agrees to ignore it too. (Which isn`t happening, so there!)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.[/quote]
Shocking.

[quote] Raw numbers is what data is supposed to look like.[/quote]
Yes - though the way you REPRESENT data will likely need to take another form to be meaningful.

[quote]If your data is anything but raw numbers then it`s useless bullpoo.[/quote]
Yes - and if you REPRESENT your data as simply raw numbers, then it is similarly useless.

Perhaps I was being overly generous assuming you actual had some simple homicide statistics on which you based your claims? Obviously you were not using homicide rates over a span of time, so I believe my assumption was fair. Am I now correct in understanding that you actually have no data to stand upon?
0
Reply
Male 427
@McGovern
Mexico borders the US. Do you think their ban will make a difference when there`s a country right next to them supplying all firearms anyone can illegally smuggle into the country? The lack of proper gun control affects other countries too.

@5Cats
By truth you mean a graph with no sources that doesn`t even remotely correlate with firearm ownership? If that`s what you consider truth then I can make a million graphs proving your own stupidity.

@HumanAction
"However, you`re..."
your.
"...limited intellect..."
I`m pretty sure a limited intellect is the norm.
"...seems to be incapable of representing data in any manner other than simple raw numbers."
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. Raw numbers is what data is supposed to look like. If your data is anything but raw numbers then it`s useless bullpoo.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
7th amendment is a really horrible example to prove that it`s a living document. It`s never been brought to the Supreme Court, but I suspect that if it were brought to the Supreme Court, they would interpret it as meaning 20 dollars in the 1700`s, which would be hundreds now.

Arguments for a living constitution are pretty easy, since it`s quite the inevitability. You can basically justify anything by the Constitution based on how you choose interpret it. It can be pro-choice or pro-life, it can call for social programs, or none at all. It`s all what you choose it to have, really.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
This site has SO many problems. Can we talk about that "counter" up in the right hand corner for a second? The one that updates every couple seconds, like it is all-knowing or something...
0
Reply
Male 7,924
AuburnJunky

"The constitution is not a living document. It is meant to apply forever, regardless of technological advancement."

Well I have read the constitution. Are you familiar with the 7th amendment?

Read it.

We didn`t amend that through congress, we just had enough common f.ucking sense to say, ok times have changed since 1789, this really doesn`t need to be followed verbatim because it no longer makes sense.
0
Reply
Male 36,542
[quote]the fact that after a country bans firearms the homicide and suicide rate drops.[/quote]
@Canoas: You got some, you know, FACTS to back that up?
Australia: Murder unchanged, Suicide slightly lower
England: M = up! S = unchanged
Canada: M = unchanged S = slightly higher
Mexico: M = MASSIVE increase! idk about suicide.
Venezuela: M =MASSIVE increase! I`d bet suicide is higher too. And rape. And kidnapping... Worst country on Earth, really, and Hugo BANNED and SIEZED the guns first thing!

So: Which countries have seen proof of your theory?

[quote]A line has to be drawn.[/quote]
A line IS DRAWN! The USA HAS restrictions & controls already! You want to MOVE that line? You need a better reason than "I`m scared of guns" OK? Eh? Geez...
0
Reply
Male 36,542
[quote]So you also think people should be able to own grenades, high-grade explosives, heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and tanks?[/quote]
@canoas: Before you beat that DEAD HORSE again? Please DO edumicate yourself: In America (and MANY other countries) you CAN INDEED own: tanks, machine guns, explosives, rockets (of various kinds, eh? sometimes called "fireworks").

DUH! Please leave that dead horse alone!

@LordJim: You know of other research or data on the subject? Unless you got better, don`t whine...

@Evil_Eye: Then overturn the 2nd Amendment! Simple really... meanwhile, following the Constitution of the USA is every American`s duty.

[quote]I find it incredibly interesting that...[/quote]
Nicely said @humanaction! Gun-grabbers LIVE by the double standard, eh? Without it? They have nothing...
0
Reply
Male 36,542
[quote]Social stability, policing and culture reduced violence.[/quote]
@Byfield: That is correct! And moot too.
The question is: did guns PROMOTE policing, culture and stability?

I`d say "yes"! A group of pre-gun thugs armed with spears and knives is easily able to overpower anyone they outnumber (except mounted knights in full armour, which cost a FORTUNE!).
With guns? Better trained and disciplined "police" can reverse this.
Armed civilians are LESS fearful of thugs and bandits, leading to much happier lives!
Armed civilians are also able to resist "legal thugs" like warlords or despotic Kings (Barons & etc). How well would Robin Hood do without his weapons? Not well at all..

@DrProfessor: he mentions in the article that it`s FAR from "proof" of anything.

@HolyGod: Good for you! I`m a terrible shot! Broadsides of barns are safe around me...
0
Reply
Male 36,542
@Canoas: Trolling? Moi? You just don`t like hearing the truth... or at least hearing what you disagree with, eh?

@normalfreak2: Yeah, the guy says plain as day that there`s VERY little research into this specific area...

@EvilEye: OK, so why haven`t gun murder rates gone UP? The overall murder rate has dropped, the gun murder rate (in the USA) keeps dropping... your argument is in fact supporting MY position!

@Canoas: Your allegory is false: "dog pit fights" are like ARMIES AT WAR and are NOT counted in "murder statistics" OK? Geez dude...

And again: Armies have killed each other AND civilians LONG before guns arrived.

@HolyGod: Microwaves came to Europe in the 1400s? WOW! News to me! :-P
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]The problem is that your tiny mind fails to grasp the fact that after a country bans firearms the homicide and suicide rate drops.[/quote]
If this were true, then that would be excellent. However, you`re limited intellect seems to be incapable of representing data in any manner other than simple raw numbers.

Compared to Australia`s rate of decline after banning firearms (7 year span), the US revocation of the first assault weapons ban was 40 fold more effective in reducing homicide.

The fact of the matter is that the Australia ban actually stunted the already declining homicide rate. Compared to other nations, Australia`s rate of decline stagnated immediately following their ban.

But you probably can`t grasp this concept.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]The problem is that your tiny mind fails to grasp the fact that after a country bans firearms the homicide and suicide rate drops.[/quote]

Tell that to Mexico guess they didn`t get the memo......
0
Reply
Male 427
"Freedom to bear arms means, freedom to bear arms, period. It doesn`t mean freedom to bear SOME arms. "
Nor does it mean freedom to bear ALL arms. A line has to be drawn.
0
Reply
Male 427
"I find it incredibly interesting that so many of the people on this thread complaining about "correlation NOT causation" also believe it is appropriate to compare homicide rates between the US and UK as if to imply some causation between firearm ownership and homicide from such a simple correlation. "

The problem is that your tiny mind fails to grasp the fact that after a country bans firearms the homicide and suicide rate drops. It`s not about comparing a country that encourages firearms with one that bans them, it`s about observing the change that a firearm ban brings to a country that had a high firearm per capita ratio.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
I find it incredibly interesting that so many of the people on this thread complaining about "correlation NOT causation" also believe it is appropriate to compare homicide rates between the US and UK as if to imply some causation between firearm ownership and homicide from such a simple correlation.

We could easily suggest that the discrepancy in homicide rates between European countries and the US is due to kinder eggs being legal in Europe; obviously kinder eggs save lives.

This double standard is absurd.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
"Patriot them up all you like but time changes everything and it has and will again change your constitution."

You misunderstand.

Change it all you want. Do it legally, with a vote by our representatives. I am okay with this.

My problem, is changing the INTERPRETATION over time. Saying one thing means one thing one time, then saying it means something different later. Preposterous.

Freedom to bear arms means, freedom to bear arms, period. It doesn`t mean freedom to bear SOME arms.

If you don`t like it, change it. Good luck with that by the way. ;)
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]I just fail to see the necessity of fringe assault weapons. [/quote]

Define assualt weapon.

Here it is I`ve got my ticket to fame!!

McGoverns law: In a gun debate anti-gunners when out of valid argument will retort to bringing up weapons of mass destrution and/or penis size.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
@auburnjunky: "The constitution is not a living document. It is meant to apply forever, regardless of technological advancement."

Bring back the Eighteenth Amendment if you feel that way. They changed that because development proved it was not necessary and needed to be changed.
There has been rules and laws for as old as written time, would be hard to follow all of them since many would contradict newer ones. And that is what the amendments are... rules your country agreed to.
Patriot them up all you like but time changes everything and it has and will again change your constitution. Deal with it.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Causation/correlation problems.

It would be much more helpful if it only focused on the 1910-2013 period. During that period, semi-automatic technology existed, as well as modernity.

But if you look at statistics in England and Australia, the murder rates seem to move independent of gun laws in force before and after the 90`s when they were mostly put in place. Low before, low after. And in America, there are states with loose gun laws and British murder rates (New Hampshire, Minnesota, Iowa), while there are some with loose gun laws and Mexican murder rates (Louisiana).

Complex system. Complex analysis.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
Canoas-"So you also think people should be able to own grenades, high-grade explosives, heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and tanks?"

You might want to edit your pitiful argument that you keep trotting out.

It is entirely legal to own heavy machine guns and tanks.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
I missed the "heavy machine gun" part.

Most definitely yes. people do own them, legally, already.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Arguably the most useless graph ever.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
"So you also think people should be able to own grenades, high-grade explosives, heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and tanks?"

Is there a 200 year old equivalent of these things that people could own back then? If so, yes.
0
Reply
Male 427
"So sick of the comparison of Muskets and today`s firearms.

If you do this, you MUST compare quill pens, and keyboards. You must compare newspapers, and websites. You must compare midnight riders, with fiber optic cable.

The constitution is not a living document. It is meant to apply forever, regardless of technological advancement."

So you also think people should be able to own grenades, high-grade explosives, heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and tanks?
0
Reply
Male 10,339
So sick of the comparison of Muskets and today`s firearms.

If you do this, you MUST compare quill pens, and keyboards. You must compare newspapers, and websites. You must compare midnight riders, with fiber optic cable.

The constitution is not a living document. It is meant to apply forever, regardless of technological advancement.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
This information is utterly useless.

For one, it points to a correlation and not a causation. If you want scientific proof of something, you have to control for any other possible cause of the data trend. For all we know, the advancement of civilization over this time period led to a more settled and less warlike society across Europe, in literally any other possible way.

Second, how accurate can we possibly expect data from the year 1000 to be? Even though the linked blog post suggests that England had "excellent records," in all reality they would have been anything but.
0
Reply
Male 7,924
mCGovern1981

"But you buy the lie that disarming everyone guarantees less crime......"

Nope. I like guns. I have a gun. I`m a good shot too.

I just fail to see the necessity of fringe assault weapons. I happen to think a simple hand gun or shotgun are fine for personal protection and a simple hunting rifle is fine for hunting.

I think big guns made to look like assault weapons and loaded with features and abilities to fire hundreds of rounds in seconds are for dickless losers with persecution complexes and fight tyranny fantasies or sociopaths. Just my opinion.
0
Reply
Male 427
"Our 2nd amend was not written saying only appicable to todays tech otherwise the 1st would only apply to freedom of printing presses."
So you also think people should be able to own grenades, high-grade explosives, heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and tanks?

"You say the weapons are quite different but you banned them all pretty much and now that it`s fail you`ve gone after sharp objects. That`s how logical anti-gun arguments are."
It has nothing to do with pro-gun or anti-gun. Over here weapons that can cause severe damage are banned and you need a licence to own them or are not allowed to carry them with you outside your property. You can own an hunting rifle if you have a licence, but you still can`t take it to the mall. You can own an axe without a licence, but you can`t go to the street with it. You can`t carry around blades bigger than 4 inches or that open automatically either.
I support this sensible decision.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]So claiming that a pistol from the 17th century is not the same as a 21st century assault rifle leads to not having sharp objects?
I find how logical pro-gun arguments are.[/quote]

Our 2nd amend was not written saying only appicable to todays tech otherwise the 1st would only apply to freedom of printing presses. You say the weapons are quite different but you banned them all pretty much and now that it`s fail you`ve gon after sharp objects. That`s how logical anti-gun arguments are.
0
Reply
Male 464
Correlation. Social stability, policing and culture reduced violence.
0
Reply
Male 427
"And you can`t have either along with many types of sharp object that`s where your type of thinking leads."
So claiming that a pistol from the 17th century is not the same as a 21st century assault rifle leads to not having sharp objects?
I find how logical pro-gun arguments are.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Canoas

Got rid of the "to" ME NEED EDIT BUTTON!!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@HolyGod

But you buy the lie that disarming everyone guarantees less crime......
0
Reply
Male 427
"But you buy the lie that disarming everyone guarantees to less crime..."
I very much doubt anyone here has ever claimed that.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Evil_Eye

And you can`t have either along with many types of sharp object that`s where your type of thinking leads.
0
Reply
Male 7,924
"Obviously, as guns became more common in Europe, murder and violent crime rates declined... So we might as wall say "History proves more guns result in less crime." Because it does."

"Obviously, as microwaves became more common in Europe, murder and violent crime rates declined... So we might as wall say "History proves more microwaves result in less crime." Because it does."

Derpty derp derpity derp derp...
0
Reply
Male 7,924
Canoas

"I`m not sure if 5cats is just trolling or if he`s really this stupid.."

Do you want an honest answer to that question?
0
Reply
Male 5,972
Upon further inspection of the data, I`m finding some issues. Source data, DO want some. Until then the graph is misleading. I had high hopes 5Cats you`d bring some "facts" to the table and not some opinions.
0
Reply
Male 427
"But it`s pretty clear (to me) that folks were slaughtering other folks LONG before guns arrived. Since the `dawn of time` even! To "blame guns" is just... medieval."
And dogs have been killing each other and other animals since the `dawn of time`. To "blame bad owners" or "blame pit fights" is just... medieval.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
17th Century:


21st Century:


You can`t say they are the same thing. That is like saying a smart car is the same as a tank.
0
Reply
Male 427
I`m not sure if 5cats is just trolling or if he`s really this stupid..

I do love the fact that there`s not a single source in the entire article except for half a print screen of another graphic with no source. This is simply hilarious.
0
Reply
Male 36,542
Whoops! "DID the arrival..." My bad!

Of course it`s mostly unknown or unknowable: records weren`t all that accurate back then. Lots of "stuff" went on that people didn`t bother even recording.

But it`s pretty clear (to me) that folks were slaughtering other folks LONG before guns arrived. Since the `dawn of time` even! To "blame guns" is just... medieval.

Note: the "counter" in the upper right corner is "pure gold" ;-)
0
Reply
Male 22
The author makes the usual fallacy of assuming correlation = causation. Their argumentation relates equally well to anything else that was introduced in Europe around the 1400s. I`m going to claim it was Gutenburgs invention of the printing press, and my statement that the distribution of books reduces the rate of homicides is as well supported by their data as the claim that gun-ownership reduced homicides.
0
Reply
Female 7,838
Well, it would be interesting but they did not actually allow for other factors really did they?
0
Reply
Male 5,972
There`s some interesting points brought up here. One of the gripes I have here is who knows what people were truly guilty of back then. Most of the time a King/Lord/Magistrate could simply think you were guilty and proof or no proof cya.

This is interesting nonetheless.
0
Reply
Male 36,542
Link: Homicide Rates Before Guns? [Pic+] [Rate Link] - The the arrival of guns in Europe bring peace or slaughter? History is interesting!
0
Reply