Neil deGrasse Tyson enrages gun-loving wing-nuts: “What a croc o’ sh*t!

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1489527 wrote: What threats are you faced with on a daily basis? How many times in the past ten years have you needed to use your guns for self-defense?

Those are the consequences of a society that refuses to behave altruistically regarding this issue.Agreed IOW, never mind!You're right. However, everybody giving up their guns voluntarily and the rest confiscated, and then addressing the manufacturing side of the issue can.You might be right, but you're not the first person to be wrong about it. And then what about the young and the innocent? Or are they crazy too?


In the last ten years, I have seldom needed to defend myself, with or without guns. And I don't usually carry a gun around for the possibility that I might need to do so.

Though there was an incident recently, where we were in fear of violence due to a domestic situation, and I spent several weeks carrying a gun, in case I might actually need to defend my family. Fortunately I was not required to use it, and the threat was dealt with.

As for the young and innocent, keeping them safe is part of being a responsible owner.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1489530 wrote: Not an entirely logical solution when probably 90% of the gun owners in the country are quite responsible. You might be correct, however it's not about responsibility, the responsibility argument is a red herring to cause misdirection. The real argument is reason - is it reasonable to have a society where guns are necessary. The real reason the gun issue is not addressed properly is the same reason no issue get addressed in the US, and that's JOBS. Between manufacturing, selling, training, lobbying, printing, advocating and so forth, eliminating guns from the US would cost quite a few jobs. America has been hoping that that issue will resolve itself as the economy evolves. The question is: do we have time for that to happen before we self-destruct from within?

LarsMac;1489530 wrote: I would rather see realistic laws regarding responsible gun ownership.they're already on the books and include ways to create felons, especially of people of color.

That is exactly what the NRA has meant by "not one new law - enforce the laws already on the books"

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1489531 wrote: In the last ten years, I have seldom needed to defend myself, with or without guns. And I don't usually carry a gun around for the possibility that I might need to do so.

Though there was an incident recently, where we were in fear of violence due to a domestic situation, and I spent several weeks carrying a gun, in case I might actually need to defend my family. Fortunately I was not required to use it, and the threat was dealt with.

As for the young and innocent, keeping them safe is part of being a responsible owner.Then that would be an answer to confirm the reasonable gun ownership argument didn't hold up, even in the face of 1) a legitimate personal concern, and 2) with the fact that guns are now everywhere and easy to be had.

Can you imagine if we were a gunless society?

[tude dog]

Ahso!;1489536 wrote: Then that would be an answer to confirm the reasonable gun ownership argument didn't hold up, even in the face of 1) a legitimate personal concern, and 2) with the fact that guns are now everywhere and easy to be had.


Where I live any adult not prohibited by law to own a gun not only can buy a gun but carry it concealed or openly.

I never felt safer.

Ahso!;1489536 wrote: Can you imagine if we were a gunless society?


No need for imagining. For all practical purposes, I lived it. That is why I carried a knife. Learned how to carry my keys in my fist. Drove around with a baseball bat.

[tude dog]

Ahso!;1489522 wrote: Growing food works too. And there's the good old American way of obtaining food by buying it. It's not necessary to use a gun for food hunting any longer, that's what jobs are for.


It not necessary to buy dead animal meat.

But I like eating animal meat.

Don't lecture me if you eat meat and never yourself killed your food, but always paid someone else to do it for you.

[tude dog]

Ahso!;1489524 wrote: Well then they should avoid arguments that might end up in those types of confrontations. More paranoia.


You can't be for real.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1489536 wrote: Then that would be an answer to confirm the reasonable gun ownership argument didn't hold up, even in the face of 1) a legitimate personal concern, and 2) with the fact that guns are now everywhere and easy to be had.
I am sure that there is a point in there, but it seems to evade me. Perhaps I have just had a long day and should have waited til morning to read it.

However The fact that I ended up not needing to actually shoot someone, while a relief, does confirm anything. The person of concern simply went the other direction first, and other people did need theirs. If I felt like I really needed to have a gun all the time, I would probably move to some place a lot more remote. I don't have guns because I need them. I just have guns. I seldom consider my own situation when discussing guns with people like you, because I see that as irrelevant to the discussion. Simple fact is, we have guns. Everybody has guns. And a majority of gun owners are neither crazy nor dangerous.

It does not matter their reasoning, or needs. They just have guns.

It makes no more sense to tell me I must give up my guns because there are dangerous people out there who have them than to tell me I must give up my car and my beer because some people drive drunk.

Ahso!;1489536 wrote: Can you imagine if we were a gunless society?
Actually, no, I cannot.

And both sides of the argument are completely wrong. Restrictive gun laws will not prevent things like the Aurora theater, or the Paris attacks, but neither will a fully and freely armed society.

We need to find that place in the middle where sanity reigns. As long as both sides are entrenched, that will never happen.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1489548 wrote: I am sure that there is a point in there, but it seems to evade me. Perhaps I have just had a long day and should have waited til morning to read it.No, you probably just don't get it. That's okay though, I honestly didn't think you would

LarsMac;1489548 wrote: However The fact that I ended up not needing to actually shoot someone,Again, when was the last time you did have to shoot someone? LarsMac;1489548 wrote: while a relief, does confirm anything. The person of concern simply went the other direction first, and other people did need theirs.That's too bad, I assume then that there was some sort of standoff or shootout and the bad guy lost? life would be so much less dramatic and boring if not for gun issues and the excitement they create. Drama Queens! LarsMac;1489548 wrote: If I felt like I really needed to have a gun all the time, I would probably move to some place a lot more remote. I don't have guns because I need them. I just have guns.It's a Zen thing then?LarsMac;1489548 wrote: I seldom consider my own situation when discussing guns with people like you, because I see that as irrelevant to the discussion.Then why do you do it? I personally think discussions are much more interesting without so many personal anecdotes, but I'm in the minority around here.LarsMac;1489548 wrote: Simple fact is, we have guns. Everybody has guns.No,some of you have guns for a variety of reasons, none of which are reasonable. If the reasons were reasonable, those of you who believe in the importance would not constantly divert the subject into strawman arguments and personal anecdotes. LarsMac;1489548 wrote: And a majority of gun owners are neither crazy nor dangerous.Not true. If you all wish to make that case, go get tested, each and every one of you. But you won't because, while perhaps not considered crazy, what would be reveled is that you all suffer individually and to varying degrees from the same common conditions as everyone else. Some proof of that might be that one would not need Buddhism, religious prayer, medication, breathing exercises and so on if they are in complete control. those are all indications that ya'll are as crazy as the rest of us.

LarsMac;1489548 wrote: It does not matter their reasoning, or needs. They just have guns.That's called denial.

LarsMac;1489548 wrote: It makes no more sense to tell me I must give up my guns because there are dangerous people out there who have them than to tell me I must give up my car and my beer because some people drive drunk.Whataboutery fallacy argument.

So let's go and straddle something somewhere - oh, there's something!

LarsMac;1489548 wrote: And both sides of the argument are completely wrong. Restrictive gun laws will not prevent things like the Aurora theater, or the Paris attacks, but neither will a fully and freely armed society.

We need to find that place in the middle where sanity reigns. As long as both sides are entrenched, that will never happen.Both sides need to remain entrenched as the situation plays out and the culture hopefully has time to evolve.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1489554 wrote: No, you probably just don't get it. That's okay though, I honestly didn't think you would

Again, when was the last time you did have to shoot someone? That's too bad, I assume then that there was some sort of standoff or shootout and the bad guy lost? life would be so much less dramatic and boring if not for gun issues and the excitement they create. Drama Queens! It's a Zen thing then?Then why do you do it? I personally think discussions are much more interesting without so many personal anecdotes, but I'm in the minority around here.No,some of you have guns for a variety of reasons, none of which are reasonable. If the reasons were reasonable, those of you who believe in the importance would not constantly divert the subject into strawman arguments and personal anecdotes. Not true. If you all wish to make that case, go get tested, each and every one of you. But you won't because, while perhaps not considered crazy, what would be reveled is that you all suffer individually and to varying degrees from the same common conditions as everyone else. Some proof of that might be that one would not need Buddhism, religious prayer, medication, breathing exercises and so on if they are in complete control. those are all indications that ya'll are as crazy as the rest of us.

That's called denial.

Whataboutery fallacy argument.

So let's go and straddle something somewhere - oh, there's something!

Both sides need to remain entrenched as the situation plays out and the culture hopefully has time to evolve.


So, my anecdotal offering was a direct response to your question. That was all. It was in no way intended to support my position.

It really matters very little what you think about it.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1489560 wrote: So, my anecdotal offering was a direct response to your question.Which question was that? LarsMac;1489560 wrote: That was all. It was in no way intended to support my position.Then why offer it?

LarsMac;1489560 wrote: It really matters very little what you think about it.No doubt. But the thread isn't about what I think. It is however an attempt to extract a reasonable explanation as to why guns are necessary and beneficial to society as a whole. That case you've yet to make, thus your anecdotes.

[Bryn Mawr]

tude dog;1489529 wrote: Criminy.

Other countries?

I have plenty of stats here.

Other countries, do we really want to go there? Different cultures, histories and blah blah blah.

I envy you that you live in a paradise of safety from crime.


Yes, we do want to go there - it's the only way you'll get a comparison between allowing virtually unlimited access to guns and severely restricting the supply.

Look at the stats instead of just dismissing them - without question people are far safer in countries where access to firearms is severely restricted.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1489563 wrote: Which question was that? Then why offer it? You have a remarkably short attention span. Post 48, I believe was where you posed the question.

Ahso!;1489563 wrote: No doubt. But the thread isn't about what I think. It is however an attempt to extract a reasonable explanation as to why guns are necessary and beneficial to society as a whole. Funny. I don't recall anywhere in the OP where such a question was posed.

Ahso!;1489563 wrote: That case you've yet to make, thus your anecdotes. I was never trying to make such a case. I merely stated that guns are here, and are a fact of life in the US. And that is not going to change in the foreseeable future. It is something we have to deal with realistically. Telling nearly 200 million people they have to get rid of them is a waste of time and energy. We would better spend our time and energy figuring out a more realistic solution to the actual problem of irresponsible ownership.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1489571 wrote: You have a remarkably short attention span. Post 48, I believe was where you posed the question.You're referring to the question about the daily threats you said you needed your guns for? The question was legitimate and relevant. You claimed there were local threats you needed to be defensive about. You never did answer it, in fact there is so many parts of my posts that you've ignored. I'm sure you ignored them because you can't give valid explanations for them. That's expected though because all you gun owners play the same game, stuff the same straw men and evade the same relevant facts and discussions on this subject. Instead, always referring to your own fears of boggy men who are out to get you and your families. And I'm paranoid? Now that's funny.



LarsMac;1489571 wrote: Funny. I don't recall anywhere in the OP where such a question was posed.The article is all about Tyson articulating reasons against guns, LM. Come on, get with it. You're so much of a literalist that you need the exact wording - is that the issue. See how inflicted you are? Whatever you do, don't go for the testing.

LarsMac;1489571 wrote: I was never trying to make such a case.Of course you weren't. That's my point. You can't. Which, as I've said repeatedly now, that is why you stuff srtraw men and use anecdotes. LarsMac;1489571 wrote: I merely stated that guns are here, and are a fact of life in the US.Which is all you can say because there is no reasonable argument for them. You're DIW.LarsMac;1489571 wrote: And that is not going to change in the foreseeable future. It is something we have to deal with realistically.Arguing (oh, look, Bruv, there's that ugly word again) with you people is dealing with the issue realistically.LarsMac;1489571 wrote: Telling nearly 200 million people they have to get rid of them is a waste of time and energy. We would better spend our time and energy figuring out a more realistic solution to the actual problem of irresponsible ownership.It is difficult to cut through the unconsciousness and stubborn mentality of gun owners, but we keep at it because you never know when the veil might drop from the eyes of one of them and clarity finally occurs. We're in it for the long haul, my friend.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1489595 wrote: You're referring to the question about the daily threats you said you needed your guns for? The question was legitimate and relevant. You claimed there were local threats you needed to be defensive about. You never did answer it, in fact there is so many parts of my posts that you've ignored. I'm sure you ignored them because you can't give valid explanations for them. That's expected though because all you gun owners play the same game, stuff the same straw men and evade the same relevant facts and discussions on this subject. Instead, always referring to your own fears of boggy men who are out to get you and your families. And I'm paranoid? Now that's funny.



The article is all about Tyson articulating reasons against guns, LM. Come on, get with it. You're so much of a literalist that you need the exact wording - is that the issue. See how inflicted you are? Whatever you do, don't go for the testing.

Of course you weren't. That's my point. You can't. Which, as I've said repeatedly now, that is why you stuff srtraw men and use anecdotes. Which is all you can say because there is no reasonable argument for them. You're DIW.Arguing (oh, look, Bruv, there's that ugly word again) with you people is dealing with the issue realistically.It is difficult to cut through the unconsciousness and stubborn mentality of gun owners, but we keep at it because you never know when the veil might drop from the eyes of one of them and clarity finally occurs. We're in it for the long haul, my friend.


So, the "high points" of this conversation were

Bryn: It is the responsibility of government to ensure that its citizens are safe and that includes ensuring that *no-one* carries weapons whose sole purpose is to kill.



LarsMac: Sorry, but the government is far too busy for me to place my family's safety in their hands. They can protect us from the foreign threats, I'll take car of the local threats, myself.

Your question: What threats are you faced with on a daily basis? How many times in the past ten years have you needed to use your guns for self-defense?



To which I replied : In the last ten years, I have seldom needed to defend myself, with or without guns. And I don't usually carry a gun around for the possibility that I might need to do so.

And you posited: Then that would be an answer to confirm the reasonable gun ownership argument didn't hold up, even in the face of 1) a legitimate personal concern, and 2) with the fact that guns are now everywhere and easy to be had.



None of that conversation had squat to do with an argument of reasonable gun ownership.

Neither, for that matter, did Tyson's tweets.

He merely tossed out some unsubstantiated data points, and some "intellectual" tweeted a silly image in response.

And now you post:

It is difficult to cut through the unconsciousness and stubborn mentality of gun owners, but we keep at it because you never know when the veil might drop from the eyes of one of them and clarity finally occurs. We're in it for the long haul, my friend.

Ah, spoken by true believers of every ilk for centuries. Just replace "gun owners" with the target group of your choice.

[LarsMac]

There alternatives to the situation being explored.

Smart Guns, for instance:

Smart guns: They're ready. Are we? - Fortune

We have a long way to go, but there is hope.

[Bryn Mawr]

LarsMac;1489729 wrote: There alternatives to the situation being explored.

Smart Guns, for instance:

Smart guns: They're ready. Are we? - Fortune

We have a long way to go, but there is hope.


It sounds like a great idea but does it stand a chance against such entrenched opposition?

[LarsMac]

Bryn Mawr;1489739 wrote: It sounds like a great idea but does it stand a chance against such entrenched opposition?


Does anything?

We will see.

[tude dog]

Bryn Mawr;1489569 wrote: Yes, we do want to go there - it's the only way you'll get a comparison between allowing virtually unlimited access to guns and severely restricting the supply.

Look at the stats instead of just dismissing them - without question people are far safer in countries where access to firearms is severely restricted.


I suppose it is really me who does not want to go down that endless road.

Can't find it it now but some months ago I read an interesting article talking about a claim of much more violence in Great Britain than the United States.

This isn't the article I had in mind but it presents much of what I read earlier.

The Skeptical Libertarian | Blog

There’s been a number of memes circulating claiming that the the United Kingdom has a violent crime rate about 4 or 5 times higher than the United States (see here, here, and here), and Ben Swann, a local TV news reporter out of Cincinnati who is popular with libertarians for his “Reality Check segments,


This claim is made by people on both sides of the debate, so we can perhaps forgive his error, but the statistic he used to justify it does not prove what he claimed. Swann states, correctly, that the US has an average of 88 guns per 100 citizens (it might be higher–nobody knows exactly how many firearms there are in the US, and figures range from 270 million to over 300 million). But this is not the rate of gun ownership.

To see why, consider the number of pet dogs in the United States. According to the Humane Society, there are 78.2 million pet dogs in the US. Given that there are 132 million households in the United States, this would imply that 59 percent of US households own a dog. But that’s not true: the Humane Society estimates that the rate of dog ownership is only 39 percent. How can this be? Because 40 percent of dog owners own more than one.


“In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. ¦The US has a violent crime rate of 466 [violent] crimes per 100,000 residents.

Some advice for Mr. Swann: when you see statistics that look unbelievable, you probably shouldn’t believe them, at least until you dig deeper into the data. Based on these figures, it appears that Britain is over 4 times more violent than the US, and since this is all he gives you, that is exactly what he leads his viewers to believe.

What Swann either doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t bother to tell his viewers, is that the definitions for “violent crime are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics he cites are also different. (He probably simply doesn’t realize this: it appears that he lifted his data wholesale from a story in the Daily Mail, without checking it–something you might expect a fact checker to have done.)

First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date: in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person, including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses, as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.

When you look at how this changes the meaning of “violent crime, it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.

But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder was mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, “possession of an article with a blade or point, and causing “public fear, alarm, or distress.


I am not going to quote the entire article here. Just want to point out how difficult it is to compare just the US and GB without going about the whole world. I don't see any way to make a apples to apples comparison.

I have enough to work within my own country. Gun laws vary greatly over here as the crime rates do.

States and cities with strict gun laws and high crime rates. States and cities where guns are legal and easy to acquire and not much of a crime problem.

Once again I am going to pick on Chicago, IL, strict gun laws.

North Central Kansas, free to buy, own, and carry, virtually no crime, with our without guns.

[tude dog]

LarsMac;1489740 wrote: Does anything?

We will see.


When the anti-gun people get a clue and stop being stupid would be a start.

Is the U.S. ready for smart guns?

The passion has been fueled by the NRA which says on its legislative website -- smart guns could open the door to a ban on all other guns. Why do they say that? Well, it's actually happened! In 2002, New Jersey's governor signed a law that became known as "the mandate."

Steve Sanetti: There is a statute in the state of New Jersey that would say that once a gun like this is offered for sale anywhere, that's the only kind of gun that could be sold.

Lesley Stahl: If these guns are sold in Wyoming or California, this triggers the law?

Steve Sanetti: Uh-huh (affirm).

Lesley Stahl: -- that everybody in New Jersey has to have that.

Steve Sanetti: Right.

Loretta Weinberg, the New Jersey state senator who authored the law, didn't foresee its consequences.

Loretta Weinberg: We passed that bill to help spur this technology.

Lesley Stahl: It appears it totally backfired because it spurred this passionate objection to the gun.

Loretta Weinberg: Because of the intervention of the NRA and the Second Amendment folks.

Lesley Stahl: That, they say, the reason they intervened is because of the mandate.

Loretta Weinberg: Right. It isn't the law that's stopped the development. It is the people who threatened folks who actually wanted to sell such a gun.

Andy Raymond came to realize that even if he had sold the Armatix gun in Maryland, it might've triggered the mandate, banning the sale of regular handguns in New Jersey.

[Andy Raymond: The people of New Jersey: my apologies. You got nothing to worry about from me.]

Andy Raymond: I did apologize. I'm... I'm sorry. Sorry to this day.

Lesley Stahl: Did you actually sell any of the Armatix guns?

Andy Raymond: No.

After his case came to her attention, the New Jersey senator offered to rescind the mandate if the gun lobby publicly removed its opposition to smart guns. She's yet to hear back.


60 Minutes

[LarsMac]

tude dog;1489757 wrote: When the anti-gun people get a clue and stop being stupid would be a start.


There is enough stupid going around on both sides of the issue.

It's time everybody came out of their trenches and started having real conversations.

[Hugo]

Guns are good and bad, there is no perfect world inside a normal world.

[Bruv]

Hugo;1489759 wrote: Guns are good and bad, there is no perfect world inside a normal world.


You naughty boy Hugo

[tude dog]

LarsMac;1489758 wrote: [QUOTE=tude dog;1489757]When the anti-gun people get a clue and stop being stupid would be a start.

There is enough stupid going around on both sides of the issue.

It's time everybody came out of their trenches and started having real conversations.


We can start with some honesty about the motives of anti-gun people.

Their laws passed to harass gun owners and progress to prohibit the private ownership of firearms speak louder than words.

[tude dog]

Hugo;1489759 wrote: Guns are good and bad, there is no perfect world inside a normal world.


Like hammers, guns are a tool. By themselves, neither good or bad.

[Bryn Mawr]

tude dog;1489756 wrote: I suppose it is really me who does not want to go down that endless road.

Can't find it it now but some months ago I read an interesting article talking about a claim of much more violence in Great Britain than the United States.

This isn't the article I had in mind but it presents much of what I read earlier.

The Skeptical Libertarian | Blog







I am not going to quote the entire article here. Just want to point out how difficult it is to compare just the US and GB without going about the whole world. I don't see any way to make a apples to apples comparison.

I have enough to work within my own country. Gun laws vary greatly over here as the crime rates do.

States and cities with strict gun laws and high crime rates. States and cities where guns are legal and easy to acquire and not much of a crime problem.

Once again I am going to pick on Chicago, IL, strict gun laws.

North Central Kansas, free to buy, own, and carry, virtually no crime, with our without guns.


As the article so clearly shows it is meaningless to compare a concept like "violent crime" where there is no universal definition but we can easily compare, for example, murder rates :-

Rank Country (or dependent territory,

subnational area, etc.) Rate /100,000 Count

121 United States 3.8 12,253

188 United Kingdom 1.0 653



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

[FourPart]

Bryn Mawr;1489569 wrote: Look at the stats instead of just dismissing them - without question people are far safer in countries where access to firearms is severely restricted.


Conversely, in a country, such as America which has a world famous Gun Culture, you will find the most heinous crimes of violence going. Local weekly homicide rates are generally rounded to the nearest 10, whereas in the UK if there is a single shooting it makes the National Headlines for the following week. Yet there are still those that claim that the need for guns is the effect & not the cause.

[tude dog]

Bryn Mawr;1489766 wrote: As the article so clearly shows it is meaningless to compare a concept like "violent crime" where there is no universal definition but we can easily compare, for example, murder rates :-

Rank Country (or dependent territory,

subnational area, etc.) Rate /100,000 Count

121 United States 3.8 12,253

188 United Kingdom 1.0 653



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate


I am aware we have many more murders/intentional homicides than the GB.

We have such differences in this country, state by state. Counties and cities. Laws differ everywhere, so as the culture societal, economic, etc conditions.

Your Wikipedia thing was meaningless.

[tude dog]

FourPart;1489803 wrote: Conversely, in a country, such as America which has a world famous Gun Culture, you will find the most heinous crimes of violence going. Local weekly homicide rates are generally rounded to the nearest 10, whereas in the UK if there is a single shooting it makes the National Headlines for the following week. Yet there are still those that claim that the need for guns is the effect & not the cause.


Hilarious

[Bryn Mawr]

tude dog;1489804 wrote: I am aware we have many more murders/intentional homicides than the GB.

We have such differences in this country, state by state. Counties and cities. Laws differ everywhere, so as the culture societal, economic, etc conditions.

Your Wikipedia thing was meaningless.


Meaningless in what way? As a starting point for a discussion it has its merits, as a measure of the willingness to kill it is the de-facto standard, as the be all and end all measure it is, like all statistics, meaningless without context and a description of external factors.

It would also be useful to discuss the differences within the US by state (and by, for example, population density) trying to pull out those external factors that are influencing the figures.

[tude dog]

Bryn Mawr;1489814 wrote: Meaningless in what way? As a starting point for a discussion it has its merits, as a measure of the willingness to kill it is the de-facto standard, as the be all and end all measure it is, like all statistics, meaningless without context and a description of external factors.



It would also be useful to discuss the differences within the US by state (and by, for example, population density) trying to pull out those external factors that are influencing the figures.


That can of worms would be a gift that gives on giving ad nausea um, if anybody wants to go there.

[Bryn Mawr]

tude dog;1489874 wrote: That can of worms would be a gift that gives on giving ad nausea um, if anybody wants to go there.


Which is why I started with the simpler country on country homicide stats - would you care to go there?