Ya lets ignore gun homicide rates and just focus on rape rates. That's clearly the best indicator for gun control effectiveness. /sarcasm
Ya lets ignore gun homicide rates and just focus on rape rates. That's clearly the best indicator for gun control effectiveness. /sarcasm
I'm sure it is. I'm just saying there plenty of areas in the US that are just as safe or safer than areas in the UK, and vice-versa. Living in the US in and of itself does not significantly increase my odds of being murdered, so long as I can easily avoid the murderers. Just like owning a gun doesn't significantly increase my odds of shooting myself, given that I'm not suicidal in the first place.
Ya lets ignore gun homicide rates and just focus on rape rates. That's clearly the best indicator for gun control effectiveness. /sarcasm
Ummm, that's not really how statistics work.
Why doesn't this mother fucker live in Somalia? Why London?
Sure, if you have a freaking island with low gun ownership to start with gun control can be very effective in limiting supply, and only hardened, organized criminals with the right connections will carry guns. But unless your advice to move to Australia was to be taken literally, I assume you were trying to make some dilute, meaningless, black-box "gun control just works" argument. In this case that's yet another argument that woefully disregards context. The idea of Australian-style gun control or anything like it being effective in the US is laughable. Even the Brady Campaign isn't stupid enough to make such comparisons.
In any case, I'd rather live in a country with negligibly higher gun crime if I got the freedom to defend myself in return. But I realize that the impulse to take the proper level of responsibility for my own safety is the exception to the rule, as it takes time, money and commitment to do it properly; and most people wherever you go are pretty short on commitment.
I know at the very least I'm certainty not moving outside of the US for fear of being shot, and I know of no one who's moved overseas and said "it was because of the gun crime."
Who the hell makes the case that all gun control laws work? Thats absolutely ridiculous.
But at least you acknowledge some gun control does work so now we can move on to what laws are effective.
Uh, it kinda is. National statistics are just averages.
If I moved to Washington DC, my odds of being shot go up many times more than if I moved to say, Fargo, North Dakota, where they'd actually go down.
Yeah what your saying is...
"if I do this thing and manage to avoid the bad side of this thing then this thing doesn't have a bad side"
"my gran smoked 60 cigs a day for 60 years and lived into her 90s. Smoking isn't bad for you "
" there's this warlord in Somalia who lives a great life in his compound, obviously Somalia is great"
No, what I posted was designed to answer the question: "What country are you more likely to be murdered in, the US or the UK?"
My response was that because I don't live in and otherwise avoid shit neighborhoods, my odds in both nations are negligible. I never denied that shit neighborhoods exist, but the existence of a violent, statistic-inflating ghetto 3000 miles away has no bearing on my personal odds of being murdered.
Now as for the odds of those who aren't as fortunate as I am, that's another story.
Yeah but you can see the problem with the "if I manage to avoid the violence then it's not a violent place" argument you're using?
I would if I was using that argument.
We're debating probabilities of crimes. Locality matters. You can't say "everywhere in the US is more violent than everywhere in the UK", which is often the implication when national statistics are referenced.
Using your argument its pretty much impossible to say "anywhere is anything more than anywhere else".
When debating probability you can't cherry pick the location.
No it's not, I'm just saying proper context should be observed.
National statistics are meaningless when applied to individuals.
Yeah but what you're trying to do is to add context where it doesn't belong.
They aren't meaningless at all they just aren't supposed to be a crystal ball.
Why doesn't it belong? The most you can state with national statistics, for anything, is averages, and the world isn't a perfect bell curve by a long shot.
How are they meaningful for individuals?
Do you feel this way about all statistics when related to individuals?
Do you have a specific point that's not hidden behind a question?
I'm not sure how you got here from your original statment of " Living in the US in and of itself does not significantly increase my odds of being murdered, so long as I can easily avoid the murderers.".
Surely you can see what's wrong with that statement?
I think you're misinterpreting what I said, of course I can't be sure since you're just asking questions and not making direct statements. In any case I think I've clarified my point since then.
To re-state: The odds of an individual being murdered cannot be accurately determined by national statistics. You have to specify the local context of the individual.