The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 23    Average: 2.4/5]
99 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8720
Rating: 2.4
Category: Science
Date: 05/20/13 09:45 AM

99 Responses to Homicide Rates Before Guns? [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 9:46 am
    Link: Homicide Rates Before Guns? - The the arrival of guns in Europe bring peace or slaughter? History is interesting!
  2. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    4085 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 9:56 am
    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.
  3. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7614 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 9:58 am
    Well, it would be interesting but they did not actually allow for other factors really did they?
  4. Profile photo of Krogholt
    Krogholt Male 18-29
    22 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:03 am
    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.
  5. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:08 am
    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" ;-)
  6. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:14 am
    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.
  7. Profile photo of Evil_Eye
    Evil_Eye Male 18-29
    1442 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:15 am
    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.
  8. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:17 am
    "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.
  9. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    4085 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:27 am
    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.
  10. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6913 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:27 am
    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?
  11. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6913 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:32 am
    "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...
  12. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:41 am
    @Evil_Eye

    And you can`t have either along with many types of sharp object that`s where your type of thinking leads.
  13. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:49 am
    "But you buy the lie that disarming everyone guarantees to less crime..."
    I very much doubt anyone here has ever claimed that.
  14. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:49 am
    @HolyGod

    But you buy the lie that disarming everyone guarantees less crime......
  15. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:50 am
    @Canoas

    Got rid of the "to" ME NEED EDIT BUTTON!!
  16. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:52 am
    "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.
  17. Profile photo of Byfield
    Byfield Male 18-29
    464 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 10:55 am
    Correlation. Social stability, policing and culture reduced violence.
  18. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:01 am
    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.

    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.
  19. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:17 am
    "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.
  20. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6913 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:22 am
    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.
  21. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:25 am
    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.
  22. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:26 am
    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.
  23. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:32 am
    "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?
  24. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:37 am
    "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.
  25. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    7068 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:37 am
    Arguably the most useless graph ever.
  26. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:38 am
    I missed the "heavy machine gun" part.

    Most definitely yes. people do own them, legally, already.
  27. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6267 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:46 am
    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.
  28. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:50 am
    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.
  29. Profile photo of Evil_Eye
    Evil_Eye Male 18-29
    1442 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:53 am
    @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.
  30. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:56 am
    I just fail to see the necessity of fringe assault weapons.

    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.
  31. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    "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. ;)
  32. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 12:21 pm
    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.
  33. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 12:37 pm
    "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.
  34. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    "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.
  35. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    The problem is that your tiny mind fails to grasp the fact that after a country bans firearms the homicide and suicide rate drops.

    Tell that to Mexico guess they didn`t get the memo......
  36. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    @Canoas

    The problem is that your tiny mind fails to grasp the fact that after a country bans firearms the homicide and suicide rate drops.
    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.
  37. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    @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
  38. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    Social stability, policing and culture reduced violence.
    @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...
  39. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 1:20 pm
    So you also think people should be able to own grenades, high-grade explosives, heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and tanks?
    @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.

    I find it incredibly interesting that...
    Nicely said @humanaction! Gun-grabbers LIVE by the double standard, eh? Without it? They have nothing...
  40. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    the fact that after a country bans firearms the homicide and suicide rate drops.
    @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?

    A line has to be drawn.
    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...
  41. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6913 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    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.
  42. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 1:52 pm
    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...
  43. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 2:40 pm
    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.
  44. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:38 pm
    @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.
  45. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:43 pm
    @Canoas

    I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
    Shocking.

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

    If your data is anything but raw numbers then it`s useless bullpoo.
    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?
  46. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    @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!)
  47. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    @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
  48. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    @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.
  49. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    By truth you mean a graph with no sources...
    Um, @Canoas? The graph is the ONLY thing with a listed source! Fail!

    ...that doesn`t even remotely correlate with firearm ownership?
    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)

    supplying all firearms anyone can illegally smuggle into the country?
    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!
  50. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:57 pm
    @Canoas

    then removing them will also remove the declining gun related homicides
    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.
  51. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:58 pm
    @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.
  52. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:59 pm
    @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?
  53. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 3:59 pm
    @HumanAction
    Post the actual data, not some bullpoo you came up with.
  54. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    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!)
  55. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    @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?
  56. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 4:11 pm
    "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?
  57. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 4:13 pm
    @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?
  58. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 4:15 pm
    @HumanAction
    No. I`ll admit I`m wrong if reliable data suggests so.
  59. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 4:28 pm
    @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.
  60. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 4:39 pm
    @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.
  61. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 4:50 pm
    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.
  62. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 4:50 pm
    @Canoas

    The firearm ban was on 1995 and you have no data that indicates any rising or falling trends in crime while firearms were legal.
    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.

    Also, the sexual assault statistic, for example, does not represent actual rape, it`s any physical assault of a sexual nature.
    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.
  63. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 5:01 pm
    @Canoas

    Alas! I must depart while still with fair weather. Fear not though - my dim-witted friend - I shall return to continue this shaming.
  64. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 6:10 pm
    @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.
  65. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 6:27 pm
    ...forged data?

    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?
  66. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 6:31 pm
    The data you provided is inconclusive at best, it does not prove your point.
    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.

    You fail tremendously at interpreting basic statistics.
    How the HELL would YOU know? LMAO!
  67. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 6:53 pm
    @Canoas

    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?
    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.
  68. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 6:57 pm
    @Canoas

    And again, as far as you know the sexual assault rate in US has been tripling every year.
    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.
  69. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 7:02 pm
    @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.
  70. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 7:57 pm
    @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.
  71. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 8:03 pm
    @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.
  72. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    @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.

    You have no data regarding the years prior to the gun ban.
    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.

    You cannot assert that that the gun ban leads to an increasing crime rate.
    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.

    The parameters you are comparing aren`t really the same thing
    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.
  73. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 8:24 pm



    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!
  74. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 8:26 pm
    @Canoas

    only the homicide rate is comparable
    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.
  75. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    @Canoas

    I`ve heard of willful ignorance but willful stupidity? C`mon.
  76. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 8:49 pm
    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.

    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.

    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.

    1000, not so much, but from ~1100 onwards they were excellent records for law, money or both. Miles of them still exist.
  77. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    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.
  78. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    May 20, 2013 at 11:34 pm
    Silly conservatives. Facts aren`t for liberals.
  79. Profile photo of RecycleElf
    RecycleElf Male 18-29
    3621 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 1:27 am
    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.
  80. Profile photo of RobSwindol
    RobSwindol Male 30-39
    2514 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 3:22 am
    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???
  81. Profile photo of Corydoras87
    Corydoras87 Male 18-29
    642 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 3:31 am
    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"
  82. Profile photo of Marco51
    Marco51 Male 18-29
    51 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 5:51 am
    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...
  83. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3520 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 6:45 am
    @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.

  84. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 6:51 am
    @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.
  85. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3520 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 7:05 am
    @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.
  86. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3520 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 7:05 am
    (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.
  87. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3520 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 7:12 am
    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."


  88. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 7:34 am
    Because the only thing that has changed has been guns, amirite? Lame post, next.
  89. Profile photo of tatripp
    tatripp Male 18-29
    1196 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 10:03 am
    they kept homicide records back in 1000 A.D.?
  90. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    579 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 10:12 am
    "Anti-Gun folks reject all data that does not support their position", would be a truthful headline.
  91. Profile photo of krw888
    krw888 Male 50-59
    174 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    Do you really expect us to have confidence in this data?
  92. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 3:43 pm
    Any site that heads their page with a statement as definitively inane as...
    "There are more than 22,431 restrictive gun laws in force. Of those, not even one has ever reduced crime."
    ...cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously.
  93. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 4:15 pm
    @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.
  94. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 4:20 pm
    @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.
  95. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 4:46 pm
    they kept homicide records back in 1000 A.D.?

    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.
  96. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 21, 2013 at 5:58 pm
    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!
  97. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    May 22, 2013 at 6:08 am
    @Canoas

    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.
    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.
  98. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    May 22, 2013 at 7:21 am
    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.
  99. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    May 22, 2013 at 7:32 am
    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....

Leave a Reply