Right-wing gunmen

While "gang-related" certainly is not accurate as he says, I think what is being described is killings tied to criminal activity vs. people snapping. In other words, individuals with substantial criminal histories engaged in crime or various "street beefs" that aren't exactly ganf-related but fit a similar pattern. People for whom illegality is not a major deterrent.

You'd really need to look at the breakdown of each case. I think purely "gangland" is a bit narrow for gun crime that is centered around criminal activity.

Practically, what I think many RWers mean by that is "Minorities shooting each other", and in their minds such acts are confined to minority neighborhoods and they to some extent or another devalue/deemphasize minority life. Sorry, but just because a shooting of an 8 year-old black child happens in a poor black neighborhood doesn't mean you can just handwave it away as "gang-shooting."

Everyone is trying to manipulate the stats to support their respective views.

Yes, the police data is fuzzy at best, but in the stats I used, there was an effort made to separate murders committed in the process of another felony and those that occurred outside such an event. The latter category had a larger number, but also contained "gangland killings", which, as you say, is pretty vague and probably not 100% accurate. In some cases there's probably a clear-cut gang link and others I think it means "someone turned up dead in a high-crime neighborhood and we don't know what happened."

The broader point is that it's pretty dumb to generalize about who is committing most murders when the police can't even categorize a quarter of them. If the police, FBI and DOJ are struggling to clear more than 50% cases, the conviction rate is way below the arrest rate, the arrest rate is well below the murder rate, and a big batch of the murders get categorized as "other", then it strikes me as unlikely that random English teachers in Korea somehow have better insights into who is responsible.

Unable to load Themes/default/index.template.php!

Well, I agree that's what the thread started out to be about, but that's not the comment i was responding to.

You of all people on this forum surely understand how people make tangentially-related (and indeed completely unrelated) points in Waygook threads.

The thread started like this-

America will never have the fascist gun control that Kyndo and Mr C crave. Gun toting states like new Hampshire and Maine will always have lower murder rates than authoritarian poop holes like... Belgium? Belgium is more violent than peaceful Maine? But... guns... Maine has concealed carry, why isn't everyone dead?

Your response was

I'm not sure what your point is here--wasn't this about guns?

I mean, in Belgium in 2016 (the last year I could easily find) about 108,000 people died, 173 of which were gun-related.  That is 0.15% of deaths that year. ( https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/18/total_number_of_gun_deaths , https://www.statista.com/statistics/516846/number-of-deaths-in-belgium/ )

In Maine in 2021 (the last year I could easily find), 16,000 people died, and 178 of those deaths were gun-related.  That's 1.1% of Mainer's deaths related to guns (  https://legislature.maine.gov/doc/9742 ) 

So, about the same number of deaths, but Belgium has quite a bit larger population.  Did you take that into account?

Which didn't address murders, just fatal shootings.

Either you are A) The kind of dimwit who mixes up the two or B) As you say, going off on a tangent. Something you pillory me for, but is apparently fine for you because you do not have consistent standards, just arbitrary ones. Hopefully it's the latter, because that's pretty much everyone to some degree!

Anyways, thank you for agreeing that even though Maine has more guns, it's safer than Belgium and thus perhaps, that access to guns is not the deciding factor.

The thread started like this-

Your response was

Which didn't address murders, just fatal shootings.

Either you are A) The kind of dimwit who mixes up the two or B) As you say, going off on a tangent. Something you pillory me for, but is apparently fine for you because you do not have consistent standards, just arbitrary ones. Hopefully it's the latter, because that's pretty much everyone to some degree!

Anyways, thank you for agreeing that even though Maine has more guns, it's safer than Belgium and thus perhaps, that access to guns is not the deciding factor.

I see you bolded the part in shaneberry that wasn't about guns, which i think shows you have still not understood. 

Let's assume as fact the parts you bolded are correct, "Maine has a lower murder rate" and "Belgium is more violent than peaceful Maine".   Then add in BUT GUNS ...? 

If Belgium is more violent than Maine, but has fewer gun-related deaths than Maine, then surely that suggests having fewer guns decreases gun-related deaths. 

I see you bolded the part in shaneberry that wasn't about guns, which i think shows you have still not understood. 

Let's assume as fact the parts you bolded are correct, "Maine has a lower murder rate" and "Belgium is more violent than peaceful Maine".   Then add in BUT GUNS ...? 

If Belgium is more violent than Maine, but has fewer gun-related deaths than Maine, then surely that suggests having fewer guns decreases gun-related deaths.

But it doesn't decrease murders. A murder by gun or a murder by knife is still a murder and an indicator violence.

The goal is to decrease murders and to show a correlation between gun ownership and murder. A murder doesn't become "more violent" because one was done with a gun vs. a knife or bludgeoning.

Which is less violent (assuming all other things are equal)- A place with 365 murders, 10 by gun OR a place with 300 murders, 250 by gun?

Yes, fewer guns reduces gun-related deaths. It does not necessarily decrease murders.

But it doesn't decrease murders. A murder by gun or a murder by knife is still a murder and an indicator violence.

The goal is to decrease murders and to show a correlation between gun ownership and murder. A murder doesn't become "more violent" because one was done with a gun vs. a knife or bludgeoning.

Which is less violent (assuming all other things are equal)- A place with 365 murders, 10 by gun OR a place with 300 murders, 250 by gun?

Yes, fewer guns reduces gun-related deaths. It does not necessarily decrease murders.

Dead is dead.  You would have to show that those gun-related deaths that are not murder would still have happened if there were no guns available.

Dead is dead.  You would have to show that those gun-related deaths that are not murder would still have happened if there were no guns available.

The issue is the murder rate relative to gun ownership.

That is the measurable. You are demanding an unmeasurable and something that is not part of the issue- That despite higher gun ownership and more liberal gun laws, Maine has a lower homicide rate than Belgium. That is the issue. You have tried to obfuscate by ignoring murders in favor of just shootings.

It's okay. You van admit the facts- That despite far more lax gun laws, Maine has a lower murder rate than Belgium. You don't have to hide from the facts.

You van admit the facts-  You don't have to hide from the facts.

Thank you Marti for telling him he has to! Van never admits to facts unless he agrees with them...and yes, he tends to hide from them when questioned. Just ask the orcas, black bears, Terry the runner, sasquatch, and countless other fallacies disguised as fact...or is that vacts? 

The issue is the murder rate relative to gun ownership.

That is the measurable. You are demanding an unmeasurable and something that is not part of the issue- That despite higher gun ownership and more liberal gun laws, Maine has a lower homicide rate than Belgium. That is the issue. You have tried to obfuscate by ignoring murders in favor of just shootings.

It's okay. You van admit the facts- That despite far more lax gun laws, Maine has a lower murder rate than Belgium. You don't have to hide from the facts.

Is that really true or are you just taking shanebarry's word for it? I've tried to find some kind of conclusive support for this claim, and everything I can find suggests that Maine's murder rate has been within the 1.6 - 2.9 per 100k range since 1990, averaging out around 1.9. Belgium's highest rate in the same time period was 3.1, with rates in the lowest years around 1.04, averaging out around 1.8.

Granted, I haven't done any deep analysis on this, and the numbers may not be perfectly accurate, but it still raises the question of why the hell anyone would take shanebarry's claim at face value. Does he strike you as someone who spends a lot of time picking through the nuances of complex issues?

"Mass shootings in the U.S. are once again on the rise — and countries around the world are taking notice.

At least seven nations have issued advisories to their citizens who intend on traveling to the U.S., citing serious safety concerns in recent years. New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Venezuela and Uruguay have each urged precaution for travelers when visiting the U.S., due in large part to gun violence."

"Yet despite these numbers, the U.S. remains one of the safer countries in the world. Not only has violent crime sharply declined since the mid-1990s, but scholars say that the U.S. doesn’t have much more crime than many other countries. It does, however, have more guns. The U.S. is the only nation in the world where guns outnumber people, at a rate of 120 guns to 100 people, according to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey.

“Rates of common property crimes in the United States are comparable to those reported in many other Western industrial nations, but rates of lethal violence in the United States are much higher,” authors and UC Berkeley scholars Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins wrote in their 1999 book, “Crime Is Not the Problem.”

Guns are the problem.

Homicides per 100k:

Venezuela: 40.4
Uruguay: 11.2
USA: 6.5

The more time Venezuelans and Uruguayans spend in the United States, the safer they'll be.

The more time Venezuelans and Uruguayans spend in any OECD contry except the United States, the much more safer they'll be.

Not true:

Columbia: 27.5
Mexico: 26.6
Costa Rica: 12.6

Homicides per 100k:

Venezuela: 40.4
Uruguay: 11.2
USA: 6.5

The more time Venezuelans and Uruguayans spend in the United States, the safer they'll be.

You're comparing apples to pineapples.

I am? The Venezuelan and Uruguayan governments issued travel warnings against the United States, citing danger there. Is that really justified? A deeper dive says no.

Is that really true or are you just taking shanebarry's word for it? I've tried to find some kind of conclusive support for this claim, and everything I can find suggests that Maine's murder rate has been within the 1.6 - 2.9 per 100k range since 1990, averaging out around 1.9. Belgium's highest rate in the same time period was 3.1, with rates in the lowest years around 1.04, averaging out around 1.8.

Granted, I haven't done any deep analysis on this, and the numbers may not be perfectly accurate, but it still raises the question of why the hell anyone would take shanebarry's claim at face value. Does he strike you as someone who spends a lot of time picking through the nuances of complex issues?

Fair point. Obviously you can have fluctuations from year to year.

Anyways the numbers you gave would suggest that they are similar and would be in the same tier. It certainly still casts doubt on the claim that liberal gun laws will result in a dangerous society. That's not to say they can't be a factor, just that they are one of many factors and other factors can be more influential.

A travel advisory can exist for a variety of reasons. U.S./Venezuela can have some hyper-dangerous areas and other areas can be tranquil. The advisory is about accidentally straying from one into the other.

I am? The Venezuelan and Uruguayan governments issued travel warnings against the United States, citing danger there. Is that really justified? A deeper dive says no.

Yes you are.

Your statement is illogical. Additionally, as the car implies, it could be easier to avoid danger in those countries, while in the US you could be walking through your middle class neighborhood and out of the blue get shot. You could be making a food delivery and go to the wrong door and get shot. You could be minding your own business in a shopping mall, hospital, place of employment and get shot. Just for being there.

That could happen... but it won't. You could be struck by lightning and die... but you won't. Do you understand statistical odds?

At the time the travel advisory was issued - mid 2019,

Venezuela: 60.3
USA: 5.1

But the stats for that year weren't even out yet, so the government was going off of

Venezuela: 81.4
USA: 5

When UK economic trouble was in the news, Ugandan dictator Idi Amin trolled them by televising a fundraiser asking for donations to help the struggling people of Britain. Similar situation here. It's like when RT, a channel funded by the Russian government, made programs about problems in the United States. Never a peep about bad things in Russia though. It's propaganda. Like Venezuela, Russia's an autocracy. Not democratic. Not free.

I find it odd how one would find comfort in comparing one's country to some of the worst places in the world for gun related deaths in comparatively undeveloped countries.