Comparing Peer Countries

jaeger19 · Apr 3, 2020

Rich2018 said:
You think that Mexico would make a better comparison to the USA than the UK, based not on its economic development but how its government is organized ?

Hmmm...let's just say that Mexico is never listed as a peer country to the USA, by researchers and organizations that conduct international comparisons

If you Google USA, peer countries you won't ever see Mexico but you'll always see the UK in a list of countries the USA is compared to

eg:

View attachment 67276943

Why do you think that is ?

Look.. you have already been schooled in this issue. If you compare countries that are disparate from the US. Say mexico and their gun control control and their crime rates with the US.. its actually statistically sound. That's because mexico.. being disparate from the US in many things.. like their gun control..
(they have only one legal gun store in the whole country), while in the US..the population has high access to firearms.
And being different in other factors... like poverty, etc..

Mexico acts as their own control.

IF gun control was a major factor in reducing crime. The mexico.. which has very high gun control..and has much lower gun ownership (15 guns per 100 people vs 88 per 100 people in the US), should be extremely safe. Violent crime in mexico should exponentially lower in mexico than the US.

If you say but but .. POVERTY is worse in mexico… well then.. you are admitting that poverty is a much much bigger determiner of violent crime.. than gun ownership.

Sorry man.. but you have been schooled about statistics over and over. So you need to stop continuing your bogus line of debate.

Rich2018 · Apr 3, 2020

jaeger19 said:
Look.. you have already been schooled in this issue.

Really?
By who and in what post ?

If you compare countries that are disparate from the US. Say mexico and their gun control control and their crime rates with the US.. its actually statistically sound. That's because mexico.. being disparate from the US in many things.. like their gun control..
(they have only one legal gun store in the whole country), while in the US..the population has high access to firearms.
And being different in other factors... like poverty, etc..

Statistically sound just means the math has been done right

It doesn't mean a statistical comparison was appropriate in the first place

I think you're being schooled here on your ignorance of the use of statistics

Mexico acts as their own control

Explain your understanding of the statistical context of "control"
And how this could possibly be applied to Mexico in a comparison relating to gun control

If gun control was a major factor in reducing crime. The mexico.. which has very high gun control..and has much lower gun ownership (15 guns per 100 people vs 88 per 100 people in the US), should be extremely safe.

Where's your evidence that gun control is a major factor in reducing crime ?

What places are you aware of that saw a significant crime drop after a gun ban ?

A gun ban reduces GUN crime. Take a look at the UK, guns are hardly ever used in crimes since the last gun legislation of 1997

Violent crime in mexico should exponentially lower in mexico than the US.

Why ?

If gun ownership reduces violent crime (as the gun lobby says it does), why do Alaska and Arizona have amongst the highest violent crime in the USA ?

If you say but but .. POVERTY is worse in mexico… well then.. you are admitting that poverty is a much much bigger determiner of violent crime.. than gun ownership.

Yes

Sorry man.. but you have been schooled about statistics over and over....

When and in what post # ?

I think I know more about statistics that you do.
What studies have you done in statistics since High School ? Any ?

So you need to stop continuing your bogus line of debate.

No, you should until you :

1. Understand the gun control debate
2. Learn about statistics
3. Learn about peer countries and how to make comparisons

Clearly you don't understand any of the above to make a worthwhile contribution to the debate.

jaeger19 · Apr 5, 2020

Rich2018;1071618647 Statistically sound just means the math has been done right It doesn't mean a statistical comparison was appropriate in the first place I think you're being schooled here on your ignorance of the use of statistics [/QUOTE said:
Actually it means that both the "math was done right".. and that the comparison is a valid one.

Explain your understanding of the statistical context of "control"
And how this could possibly be applied to Mexico in a comparison relating to gun control

Click to expand...

Sure. Many other factors are potentially "intervening variables"..when it comes to violent crime. In other words..there are multiple other things that may contribute to violent crime. For example poverty.. or rural vs urban.. or cultural aspects like inequality/inequity.

So.. you take lets say a comparison of Canada with the US. Well.. we are very close when it comes to violent crime. we have a lot of intervening variables that we share... and we also don't have large differences in our gun control really. It becomes very difficult to try and figure out which variable has the most influence on violent crime. You see a difference and assume that it must be gun control because that's what you want to believe..

But any scientific researcher would understand that it could be the difference in rural vs urban.. it could be due to the safety nets they have in place.. it could be due to not having as much inequity or cultural issues etc.. that would account for the differences in violent crime.

Now.. you take comparing Mexico and the US.

Mexico.. has a very very disparate gun control law than the US.. and Canada by the way. They only have ONE lawful gun store in the WHOLE COUNTRY. Their gun laws are draconian compared to the US.

And their other variables.. like inequity.. like poverty,, are much higher than the US. SO.. the high inequity.. and high poverty.. act as controls... IF gun control was the primary factor in lower violent crime.. then Mexico should have much lower violent crime than the US.. who has much much less gun control. But it doesn't...which means that factors like poverty and inequity.. have a much higher effect on violent crime.

Where's your evidence that gun control is a major factor in reducing crime ?

Click to expand...

That's the point.. there is no evidence that it is a major factor.. as evidence by mexico above.

What places are you aware of that saw a significant crime drop after a gun ban ?

Click to expand...

See above.

A gun ban reduces GUN crime. Take a look at the UK, guns are hardly ever used in crimes since the last gun legislation of 1997

Click to expand...

Bingo. Now there is evidence to support that. However.. as I pointed out.. that statistic is not valid. Yep.. it reduces gun crime. But whats the validity in that statistic.

If you are murdered.. does it really matter if you were killed with a firearm.. or killed by a knife,bat etc?

If you are robbed and your money taken.. does it matter if they used a gun to do it.. or a knife bat etc?

From a validity standpoint.. no.. it doesn't matter. From which is safer standpoint.. what matters is violent crime statistics... which include "gun crimes"..

If I live in a community of 10,000 people and we have one murder a year.. and its done with a gun..

And you live in a community of 10,000 people and have 100 murders a year and they are all done with a knife...

I live in a safer community.. despite having higher "gun crime"...

that's just how statistics and validity work. Its the objectivity of science.

That's why even you have admitted that SYRIA and Afghanistan are much deadlier places to live than the US.. despite the fact that they have LOWER gun death rates than the US.

Why ?

Click to expand...

Explained above.

If gun ownership reduces violent crime (as the gun lobby says it does), why do Alaska and Arizona have amongst the highest violent crime in the USA ?

Click to expand...

Because other factors than gun ownership (lots of gun ownership OR very little gun ownership) .. have a much greater effect on violent crime. Which is why we should focus our resources on those things that have greater influence on violent crime.. rather than on diverting needed resources on firearms.. which has very little evidence to suggest it has an effect on violent crime.

What studies have you done in statistics since High School ? Any ?

Click to expand...

Well considering that I used to teach statistics to college students and masters degree students.. and that I have been published in peer reviewed journals.. I would bet on my statistics credibility. Look.. just go take what I said to anyone that actually understands statistics and they will tell you I am correct. Especially when we discuss validity of gun deaths etc.

Nickyjo · Apr 5, 2020

Irredentist said:
Bit of a difficult standard to use, seeing as how different parts of the United States often have very different cultural values.

That’s a good point, does a mother frightened for her son in the inner city have the same experience have the same values and culture as a hunter in rural area. Problem seems to me is that we don’t engage, we sit on our stools in our respective corners shouting anecdotes about a mass killing or a good guy who shot a would be attacker. The NRA doesn’t help much.

Rich2018 · Apr 6, 2020

jaeger19 said:
Actually it means that both the "math was done right".. and that the comparison is a valid one.

No it doesn't

Statistics doesn't state what a good comparison is

It is just as applicable to comparing apples with apples and apples with oronges

You don't know what the phrase "statistically sound" means obviously. Why don't you look for a definition to help you relive your ignorance ?

...there are multiple other things that may contribute to violent crime. For example poverty.. or rural vs urban.. or cultural aspects like inequality/inequity.

Yes, population density and poverty (wealth distribution/inequality) are chief amongst them

....lets say a comparison of Canada with the US. Well.. we are very close when it comes to violent crime. we have a lot of intervening variables that we share... and we also don't have large differences in our gun control really. It becomes very difficult to try and figure out which variable has the most influence on violent crime. You see a difference and assume that it must be gun control because that's what you want to believe..

No, gun control has nothing to do with crime rates
The UK proves that
Canada doesn't have the population density of the USA and also doesn't have quite the same wealth inequality that the USA has

But any scientific researcher would understand that it could be the difference in rural vs urban..

ie: population density

it could be due to the safety nets they have in place it could be due to not having as much inequity or cultural issues etc...

ie: wealth inequality

What cultural differences exist between the USA and Canada that might explain violent crime (other than wealth inequality and populayion density) ?

Now.. you take comparing Mexico and the US.

Mexico.. has a very very disparate gun control law than the US.. and Canada by the way. They only have ONE lawful gun store in the WHOLE COUNTRY. Their gun laws are draconian compared to the US.

And their other variables.. like inequity.. like poverty,, are much higher than the US...

QED

Thus proving that gun control doesn't increase violent crime or a high level of gun ownership (like Arizona, Alaska) doesn't decrease violent crime

... there is no evidence that it is a major factor.. as evidence by mexico above.

Nope, and the gun owning lobby that claims high gun ownership does, are totally wrong

Now there is evidence to support that. However.. as I pointed out.. that statistic is not valid. Yep.. it reduces gun crime. But whats the validity in that statistic.

If you are murdered.. does it really matter if you were killed with a firearm.. or killed by a knife,bat etc?

If you are robbed and your money taken.. does it matter if they used a gun to do it.. or a knife bat etc?

No, but the chances of being killed in an incident of violent crime (or terrorist attack) are much reduced
Gun control doesn't reduce violent crime, but it does make the (physical) consequences less severe

If I live in a community of 10,000 people and we have one murder a year.. and its done with a gun

And you live in a community of 10,000 people and have 100 murders a year and they are all done with a knife...

I live in a safer community.. despite having higher "gun crime"...

Yes

that's just how statistics and validity work. Its the objectivity of science.

But statistics doesn't tell you which samples to compare

That's why even you have admitted that SYRIA and Afghanistan are much deadlier places to live than the US...

...despite the fact that they have LOWER gun death rates than the US...

Because of many Syrian people being killed by bombs ?

Explain

...we should focus our resources on those things that have greater influence on violent crime..

You mean like building bigger cities and making the poor, wealthier ?

Yeah right

Solving crime 101

Meanwhile in the real world....40,000 people are killed and over 70,000 people shot but survived per YEAR

So should we take everyone's guns away until you've figured out how to make the USA a crime free Utopia ?
Gun owners can have their guns back then. How about that ?

Well considering that I used to teach statistics to college students and masters degree students.. and that I have been published in peer reviewed journals..

Really, which college and which journals ?

Your post certainly doesn't lend evidence to that claim

What is a Standard Deviation in your own words, not some copy and paste cheat ?

...just go take what I said to anyone that actually understands statistics and they will tell you I am correct...

Hardly

Your post doesn't show you know anything about statistics.

jaeger19 · Apr 9, 2020

Rich2018 said:
No it doesn't

Statistics doesn't state what a good comparison is

.

Actually yes it does. to be statistically sound.. it has to be a reliable, valid comparison free from intervening variables.

Yes, population density and poverty (wealth distribution/inequality) are chief amongst them

Which shows you that gun control is not a significant factor. So why waste time and valuable resources on a factor that won't have a significant effect?

No, gun control has nothing to do with crime rates
The UK proves that

Bingo. So it doesn't make you safer. In fact.. there are studies that show gun control may make you less safe.

So why do you keep pushing an agenda that at the very least.. doesn't make us safer.. and instead may actually make us less safe.

What cultural differences exist between the USA and Canada that might explain violent crime (other than wealth inequality and populayion density) ?

A relative homogeneity of cultures. Racial and cultural friction in the US probably contributes to a portion of our violent crime more so than in Canada. ie, Hate crimes.

Their universal healthcare might also help reduce crime rates as access to mental health might be better.

The difference in how they handle their criminal justice system and prison system might also contribute to lower crime.

Thus proving that gun control doesn't increase violent crime or a high level of gun ownership (like Arizona, Alaska) doesn't decrease violent crime

There is some evidence that gun ownership does decrease the level of all crime. but you are right...there is no evidence that high gun ownership increases violent crime... and little evidence that it decreases it.

Of course gun advocates don't try to force people to buy guns when they don't want to.. while gun grabbers like yourself.. push gun control measures that would violate peoples rights and you now admit for no valid reason.

No, but the chances of being killed in an incident of violent crime (or terrorist attack) are much reduced

No they are not. If that were the case.. then violent crime statistics.. which include violent crimes in which people are killed... should dramatically decrease in countries with fewer guns.. but as you admit.. they don't.

But statistics doesn't tell you which samples to compare

To have validity.. yes they do.

So should we take everyone's guns away until you've figured out how to make the USA a crime free Utopia ?
Gun owners can have their guns back then. How about that ?

Why? You have to explain that. So you want to spend billions of dollars taking "everyones guns".... (which won't happen of course.. and the more you try taking everyones guns.. the more expensive it gets)… even though you just admitted that taking away any ones guns.. won't do a thing to reduce violent crime.

You realize that your argument.. doesn't make any sense. Especially when you admitted that it won't reduce crime.

I would say.. we know how to reduce crime.. we have been doing it. Spending the money and resources on things that work... like better access to healthcare.., better access to mental health. Revamping our criminal justice system. Better education and better access to education.

Really, which college and which journals ?

SUNY Binghamton, Creighton university, Pacific university. Albert Einstein College of Medicine.. and the New England Journal of Medicine.

What is a Standard Deviation in your own words, not some copy and paste cheat ?

Standard deviation is a measure of the variation in your data. A Standard deviation is a calculation of taking the average of the mean of the data.. then subtracting the mean from each datum, squaring the result averaging the results .

So.. lets take an example of test scores. On one test.. the person scores 50 points above the average.. Sounds great right. But it actually is only within one standard deviation (in other words.. its pretty darn close to average).

On another test.. a person scores only 10 points above the average (mean). Sounds pitiful.. but it is three standard deviations from the mean. Which could mean that the person did astoundingly well. (there are caveats to all of that).

But from a laymans way of explaining it.. a standard deviation is a measure of just how far from the mean you really scored compared to everyone else. Something that the raw data.. (50 points versus 10 points).. might not tell you.

It is used as a way to help determine if results are statistically significant or not.. .in determining outliers.. etc. Which is a whole other discussion.

Rich2018 · Apr 9, 2020

jaeger19 said:
Actually yes it does. to be statistically sound.. it has to be a reliable, valid comparison free from intervening variables.

Nope, it just means the math is good and it's fair sample size

Proof you claims of experience in statistics are a lie

Show me evidence that a statistical comparison has such a qualitative element

Which shows you that gun control is not a significant factor. So why waste time and valuable resources on a factor that won't have a significant effect?

Because the object of gun control is not to reduce crime (though I believe a reduction can be expected, there is no evidence that it will materialize). The object in gun control is to reduce gun crime in general, and mass shootings in particular

So it doesn't make you safer....

Maybe a little

The UK has seen a 45% drop in gun homicide in the last 10 years

In fact.. there are studies that show gun control may make you less safe.

No, studies show that having a gun in the home increases the chances of you getting shot
ie: it makes you less safe

So why do you keep pushing an agenda that at the very least.. doesn't make us safer..

Because it does
(see above)

A relative homogeneity of cultures. Racial and cultural friction in the US probably contributes to a portion of our violent crime more so than in Canada. ie, Hate crimes.

Click to expand...

Where's your evidence of that ?

Their universal healthcare might also help reduce crime rates as access to mental health might be better.

Click to expand...

Yes quite possibly, but there's no way for you to prove that

Though state funded, universal healthcare, in the USA, is a progressive policy I would wholeheartedly support

The difference in how they handle their criminal justice system and prison system might also contribute to lower crime.

Click to expand...

Actually, IMO, British courts give out lower sentences generally because of too few prisons
US courts give out much longer sentences, with a far higher deterrent factor

IIRC there were 734 homicides in the UK, in 2018 - just 29 by shooting
The UK is a violent place - especially the inner cities

Of course gun advocates don't try to force people to buy guns when they don't want to.. while gun grabbers like yourself.. push gun control measures that would violate peoples rights and you now admit for no valid reason.

Click to expand...

The valid reason is to cut gun crime (above)

No they are not. If that were the case.. then violent crime statistics.. which include violent crimes in which people are killed... should dramatically decrease in countries with fewer guns.. but as you admit.. they don't.

Click to expand...

See the UK homicide stats above

High gun ownership doesn't decrease the crime rate
Low gun ownership doesn't decrease it

Low gun ownership decreases gun crime (which generally is far deadlier than non gun crime)

To have validity.. yes they do.

Click to expand...

Prove it

...so you want to spend billions of dollars taking "everyones guns".... (which won't happen of course.. and the more you try taking everyones guns.. the more expensive it gets)…

Click to expand...

To reduce gun crime in general and mass shootings in particular

Why would it cost billions of dollars? I would expect the courts to issue heavy fines to those refusing to hand in their guns (and while most people will there will be a few that don't) totalling "billions of dollars"

And where's your evidence that it won't work ? Just your personal perception ?

You realize that your argument.. doesn't make any sense. Especially when you admitted that it won't reduce crime.

Click to expand...

Why ?

Gun control in Australia and the UK was brought in as a response to mass shootings. It makes perfect sense, the people who refuse to see any "sense" are gun owners and those making money in the manufacture and supply of guns

I would say.. we know how to reduce crime.. we have been doing it. Spending the money and resources on things that work... like better access to healthcare.., better access to mental health. Revamping our criminal justice system. Better education and better access to education.

Click to expand...

LOL, and while you're at it make everyone wealthy and find a cure for cancer

How about a compromise? Guns are ONLY banned until this crime free Utopia of yours is achieved, then everyone gets their guns back
Sounds fair ?

SUNY Binghamton, Creighton university, Pacific university. Albert Einstein College of Medicine.. and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Click to expand...

May I read your papers on line ?

Click to expand...

DebateChallenge · Apr 10, 2020

Rich2018 said:
The UK has seen a 45% drop in gun homicide in the last 10 years

Yet stabbings are sky high, particularly in London.

Rich2018 · Apr 10, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
Yet stabbings are sky high, particularly in London.

Says the guy who says using UK data is comparing apples to oranges

London is a violent city

Gun ownership does not mean violent crime goes down - as Alaska gun law and violent crime proves.

DebateChallenge · Apr 11, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Says the guy who says using UK data is comparing apples to oranges

London is a violent city

Gun ownership does not mean violent crime goes down - as Alaska gun law and violent crime proves.

Alright if we don't want to compare London then lets look at NYC. NYC is one of the most gun restricted places in the USA and yet there's tons of stabbings there.

Rich2018 · Apr 11, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
Alright if we don't want to compare London then lets look at NYC. NYC is one of the most gun restricted places in the USA and yet there's tons of stabbings there.

Where's your evidence that knife related crime is high in NYC ?

"According to a 2015 ranking of 50 cities by The Economist, New York was the 10th overall safest major city in the world, as well as the 28th safest in personal safety."

Homicide was down over 20% in Jan 2020 compared to Jan 2019

And I'm fine with comparing UK cities with US cities, but you said comparing the US to the UK was "apples to oranges" and then you did just that
Not very consistent are you ?

DebateChallenge · Apr 13, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Where's your evidence that knife related crime is high in NYC ?

The news

Rich2018 said:
"According to a 2015 ranking of 50 cities by The Economist, New York was the 10th overall safest major city in the world, as well as the 28th safest in personal safety."

Homicide was down over 20% in Jan 2020 compared to Jan 2019

And there is no indication that that was because of gun control. The gun laws in NYC didn't change in NYC from 2019 to 2020.

Rich2018 said:
And I'm fine with comparing UK cities with US cities, but you said comparing the US to the UK was "apples to oranges" and then you did just that
Not very consistent are you ?

I never compared them, I just pointed out how London has a high stabbing rate. I also gave the example of NYC which is an American city that has a high stabbing rate. I never compared the two cities or said which city had more stabbings.

Rich2018 · Apr 13, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
The news

So you have ***NO*** evidence

Link to the news report please - if indeed you even know of one

And there is no indication that that was because of gun control....

Your (unsubstantiated - no surprise there) claim was:

lets look at NYC. NYC is one of the most gun restricted places in the USA and yet there's tons of stabbings there

Yet the figures show NYC is the 10th safest major city in the USA - so much for your unsubstantiated claim that "...there's tons of stabbings there."

I never compared them, I just pointed out how London has a high stabbing rate.

Says the guy who says the UK is NOT a good comparison to the USA

So which is it - is the UK worth comparing the USA to or not ?

I also gave the example of NYC which is an American city that has a high stabbing rate...

Despite being the 10th safest major city in the USA

Where's the evidence for your unsubstantiated claim ?