I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  


friendsmore friends | add your site
Gorilla Mask



Not Healthy

Free Samples

FreeGame Heaven

Funny Stuff

Funny Games

Viva La Games

Crazy Games

Quiz Stop

Insane Pictures

123 Games

Back to Listing

Homicide Rates Before Guns? [Pic+]

Hits: 8714 | Rating: (1.9) | Category: Science | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 14177 Posts
Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:32:18 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....

Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 14177 Posts
Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:21:36 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.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:08:25 AM

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.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 29120 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:58:48 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!

Male, 40-49, Europe
 12389 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:46:41 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.

Male, 18-29, Europe
 429 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:20:18 PM
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.

Male, 18-29, Europe
 429 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:15:48 PM
"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.

Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2576 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:43:04 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.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 174 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:24:00 PM
Do you really expect us to have confidence in this data?

Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 579 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:12:36 AM
"Anti-Gun folks reject all data that does not support their position", would be a truthful headline.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 1201 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:03:43 AM
they kept homicide records back in 1000 A.D.?

Male, 30-39, Canada
 5753 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:34:17 AM
Because the only thing that has changed has been guns, amirite? Lame post, next.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2665 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:12:28 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."

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2665 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:05:37 AM

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.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2665 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:05:16 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.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 29120 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:51:53 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.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2665 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:45:01 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.

Male, 18-29, Europe
 48 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:51:52 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...

Male, 18-29, Europe
 638 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:31:47 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"

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 2513 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:22:49 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???

Male, 18-29, Europe
 3632 Posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:27:00 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.

Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 15860 Posts
Monday, May 20, 2013 11:34:18 PM
Silly conservatives. Facts aren't for liberals.

Male, 30-39, Western US
 4379 Posts
Monday, May 20, 2013 9:37:58 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.

Male, 40-49, Europe
 12389 Posts
Monday, May 20, 2013 8:49:59 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.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Monday, May 20, 2013 8:30:50 PM

I've heard of willful ignorance but willful stupidity? C'mon.

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account

Back to Listing ^top

Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |