Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Old 8th Nov 2014, 00:42
  #1281 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
Full Definition of WORLD WAR


: a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world.

Okay, well there are a couple ways we can look at this;

One, the US was not a principal nation. Nope, don't think that's right, or you Brits would have not gotten down on your hands and knees begging the US for help.

"Oh help us, help us, we got our arses kicked by the Germans, lost the war in Europe and now mighty Italy has declared war on us. OH HELP US, HELP US, US!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ē


Or, two, every war in Europe between by all or most of the principal nations of the world, which due to European and British arrogance that they were the only the principal nations of the world, has been a World War.

So instead of the Great War being called World War One, it should have been called World War XV or XX, World War Two should have been called World War XVI to XXI. Or pick a number.

So no, until the US got involved it was a regional powers war in Europe and regional power war in Asia. As when the United States was attacked, it was the last principal nation in the world involved. This is when the Second World War really started and it truly was worldwide.






Yes! My clever ploy is still working!
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 04:43
  #1282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 76
Posts: 452
Brick history - If UK gun laws only hinder the law abiding how is it that we only have 50 or so gunshot deaths per year from all cause while you have 10,000 gun homicides per year? Your lack of gun control seems to hinder the law abiding even more and also encourage the criminals. By your hypothesis we should have law abiding people being shot in large numbers as we are unable to defend ourselves or families due to lack of firearms. If we were murdered by gunshot in the same ratio as the US we would have about 2,000 gun victims per year - we have 50 from all causes. Like to hazard a guess why?
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 05:57
  #1283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
bcg
Not interested in hazarding a guess, I'm only interested in facts so:
Would you like to explain what you mean by ratio. The ratio of what to what, precisely.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 06:13
  #1284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Great time at the range today. The LE retirees were a really outrageous group, tremendous fun. Daughter decided barbecue was boring so we had shredded beef and potatoes in a "herby gravy" sauce (just right on a nippy day), followed by hot deep dish apple pie.

Much ammo expended and there will be a repeat performance in a couple of weeks while the weather is good.

Nobody shot or murdered anyone else unfortunately so no excitement. We did invent a new US statistic for you, number of gun deaths per round of ammunition fired in the year. We decided that the US has by far the least gun deaths versus the number of rounds of ammunition fired, a quick calculation suggests that there is 1 gun death per 150 million rounds of ammunition fired. I think this will beat the UK considerably.


Toodle pip.

.

Last edited by BOING; 8th Nov 2014 at 06:25.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 06:22
  #1285 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Now stewing on the fact that due to this Gottverdammt Covid-19 curse I am not returning to Japan this year, or going anywhere for that matter! So just continuing the search for that bad bottle of Red!
Age: 65
Posts: 2,586
Thumbs up

BOING: I'm headed out to our local Pistol club tomorrow with my Beretta Mod 92 for a service pistol shoot and will try to improve on the number of rounds fired here in Aussie.

If I ever make it over your way, any chance I can join in on your fun group?

I promise to only shoot the Brussels sprouts if given permission!
Pinky the pilot is online now  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 06:31
  #1286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 76
Posts: 452
Boing I will try to simplify things so that even you will understand. I meant the ratio of population to gun deaths ie if the US ha s a population of 300 million with about 10,000 homicides by firearm one would expect if all else is equal,the number of homicides by firearm in the UK with a population of 60+ million would be expected to be around 2000. In fact the figure from all causes is around 50 per year.
Another couple of figures to annoy you- Forbes magazine,not exactly a left wing publication gives a figure of $174 billion dollars a year as the cost of gunshot injuries and deaths in the US. In 2010 it estimated the cost at $564 per head of population. I hope I do not have to simplify that one for you - get your mum to read it and she will explain.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 06:45
  #1287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Pinky
Any time you are heading to the Pacific Northwest PM me, happy to have you along.
But keep your hands of the brussels sprouts since I am originally a Pom - don't mess with our soul food.

.

Last edited by BOING; 8th Nov 2014 at 07:07.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 07:05
  #1288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Oh BCG, you are a one, our Gladys thought you were so funny until she read your post twice.

Your statistic is useless. Clearly, quite obviously, even to a child like myself, a ratio of gun deaths per head of population is meaningless since it no way takes into account gun ownership.

I meant the ratio of population to gun deaths ie if the US ha s a population of 300 million with about 10,000 homicides by firearm one would expect if all else is equal,the number of homicides by firearm in the UK with a population of 60+ million would be expected to be around 2000.
OK. slowly, let's invent a third country with a population of 150 million. That country should, by your reckoning have half the number of gun deaths of the US but it has zero gun deaths, why? because it has zero guns in the population. Now that figure is better than the figure for the UK is it not - zero deaths in a population of 150 million. The ONLY statistic which is relevant to the situation is one that includes the "Number of armed people" as the variable. All the rest are attempts to massage the data to project a chosen position.

And no, before you think you can cleverly jump onto my example to prove than no guns equals no gun deaths - don't bother. The chosen example was purely hypothetical to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument. If guns are available either legally or illegally your Utopia does not exist - that's reality, sorry but like disease deaths and motor cars accidents it exists.

Mind explaining why Zimbabwe has fewer gun deaths per year per head of population than the UK?

.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 07:56
  #1289 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Clearly, quite obviously, even to a child like myself, a ratio of gun deaths per head of population is meaningless since it no way takes into account gun ownership.
Well that's the point: you're trying to assess whether gun ownership is a factor or not so you compare "gun ownership per head" with "gun deaths per head" and see if there is a correlation for multiple datapoints. That's exactly what bcg was doing (in a very limited way). In your own example the gun ownership rate of zero would likely lead to a gun death rate of zero if the model holds, just like if the UK had a gun ownership rate the same as the US you would expect 2000 deaths per year instead of the 50 or so we see, again if the model holds (which I'm not sure it does).

Source
Mind explaining why Zimbabwe has fewer gun deaths per year per head of population than the UK?
If we accept correlation and causation are the same thing (which they are not) then the answer would be that there is a lower gun ownership rate in Zimbabwe than in the UK.
PTT is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 08:09
  #1290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by con-pilot View Post

So no, until the US got involved it was a regional powers war in Europe and regional power war in Asia. As when the United States was attacked, it was the last principal nation in the world involved. This is when the Second World War really started and it truly was worldwide.
I see your problem. You've been brainwashed by rewritten Hollywood history. Nothing counts until America is involved right?

It took you a long time to find a definition that fitted your argument, didn't it, yet you still don't seem to understand the word 'most'. As you consider the USA to be the "last" principal nation to become involved it stands to reason that "most" were already involved, therefore, even by your definition it was already a world war.

Do you want help finding the dates for WW2? It's interesting because it starts before 1941.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 08:27
  #1291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 76
Posts: 452
Boing - you have proved my point exactly - there were no gun deaths in your hypothetical country as there were no guns, there are few gun deaths in the UK because there are few guns. There are about 300 million guns in circulation in the US . In the UK the number of guns ( and owners) is a small fraction of that. I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why we have so few gunshot deaths in the UK if it is nothing to do with the number of guns. So glad that your mum thought my post amusing.
As I have not paid much attention to the firearm deaths in Zimbabwe I really cannot make any comment in that respect. There are countries that have a lower gunshot death rate than the UK - perhaps we should take advice from them.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 08:47
  #1292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 76
Posts: 452
Boing - Just had a quick look at the figures for Zimbabwe and even lower figure for Japan, they both have even stricter gun control laws than the UK - no doubt that is just coincidence. Frankly I would not put too much credence on the Zimbabwean figures,it is one of the most corrupt and I'll governed countries in the world. Bob Mugabe is not known as a benign leader. A good friend of the North Koreans.
Just in case your mum does not know where it is - it is in Africa.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 11:16
  #1293 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by bcgallacher View Post
I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why we have so few gunshot deaths in the UK if it is nothing to do with the number of guns.
This is an interesting read: https://maketheworldworkbetter.wordp...and-the-stats/
the results are pretty clear: when we include the US in the model, total murder rates are predicted by gun ownership AND income inequality AND per capita GNI Ė each one of these things appears to play a role, even when controlling for the others. But when we exclude the US, the overall model performs poorly and only per capita GNI appears to have a (weak) association with total murder rates.

So this is telling us the same thing again: when the US is included, all these things seem important, but when itís not they donít. The US is anomalous in many ways: in addition to those listed above, there is more racial tension, more intergenerational poverty in ghettos and in some rural areas, more a culture of mistrusting government, more a culture of violence than in the other OECD countries. Based only on the lessons we can learn from the other countries without the US, there is no reason to suspect that limiting gun ownership would decrease overall murder rates.
PTT is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 13:02
  #1294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
BCG,

Mind explaining the difference between Mexico and the US?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 14:11
  #1295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
And whilst the usual suspects 'swerve' with silly squabbles about who dick was biggest in the two World Wars


BBC News - Fourth US school attack victim dies in Washington state
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 14:51
  #1296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
SFFP, BCG,

Euros and UKers keep looking at our way of life as a bug needing a fix; we look at it as a feature that is perfectly acceptable and liberty loving.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 14:55
  #1297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
SFFP, BCG,

Euros and UKers keep looking at our way of life as a bug needing a fix; we look at it as a feature that is perfectly acceptable and liberty loving.

GF


Did you open the link at #1299?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 15:39
  #1298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Boing - you have proved my point exactly - there were no gun deaths in your hypothetical country as there were no guns, there are few gun deaths in the UK because there are few guns. There are about 300 million guns in circulation in the US . In the UK the number of guns ( and owners) is a small fraction of that. I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why we have so few gunshot deaths in the UK if it is nothing to do with the number of guns.
There will obviously be no gun deaths in a country with no guns but this has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the population which figure has been used as the Y axis on several graphs published herein.

1. Two countries, one with 300 million population and one with 10 million population will both have zero gun deaths if there are no guns.
2. A country with 300 million people and 300 million guns will only have one gun death if all the guns belong to one person and he goes crazy.
3. A country with 10 million people and 10 million guns equally distributed will potentially have 10 million gun deaths (which solves the problem long term) if all the population went crazy.

It is very, very, absolutely clear that the number of gun deaths in a country is totally dependent on the number of people possessing a gun, not the total population or the total number of guns both of which statistics are used to justify people's opinions.

The simple existence of a firearm or the simple existence of a person in an armed society does not cause gun deaths. The deaths are caused by a fatal combination of a gun and a person willing to use it to a wrong end. Until we start our attempts to control gun violence based on that fact rather than repeating totally pointless statistics we will never get anywhere.

If you can follow those simple arguments then the reason why there are so few gun deaths in the UK is that there are few guns and few gun owners - I have never seen anybody seriously disputing that fact. However, the popular choice in the US is that virtually anyone who wishes to do so may own a firearm. It does not take a genius to work out, and it certainly does not need graphs or distorted statistics to prove, that this will lead to more gun deaths. The reasons there are no rivers in a desert is because there is no rain, in Oregon we have the massive Columbia River because it rains a lot in the Northwest. Dohh !!! We do not have to pay a bunch of researchers to understand this and make the connection.

Does anybody fundamentally disagree with my numbered contentions above or can we start discussing how to control US gun violence based on facts rather than slewed statistics?


.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:07
  #1299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Zimbabwe, interesting statistic. 13 million population.

Does anyone really believe that the number of firearms deaths in the country is so low or are we dealing with false reports based on what the government classifies as a gun death.

Military control over diamond mining in Zimbabwe's eastern Marange district has resulted in a brutal mix of massacres, forced labour, beatings and rape.

This is according to a comprehensive report released last week by Human Rights Watch (HRW), the New York-based rights NGO, which interviewed over 100 people in the region in February 2009.

Mining in Marange began in 2006. Initially the government allowed anybody to prospect in the area. Then it started clamping down. Recognizing the mines as an important revenue opportunity, the Zanu PF-controlled army invaded the mines in October 2008, massacring over 200 miners in the process.

Helicopters swooped down over illegal miners, shooting live ammunition and teargas. 800 soldiers were sent in to secure the area. Illegal miners were forced to dig mass graves for their murdered comrades. The report says:

A local headman told Human Rights Watch that in the three weeks of the military operation, Chiadzwa resembled "a war zone in which soldiers killed people like flies." Another headman was forced to bury five bodies of miners; all five bodies had what appeared to be bullet wounds. None of the bodies were identifiable.
It appears that Zimbabwe reports only civilian gun deaths as the official statistic while totally ignoring state sponsored killing.

Despite its apparent low gun death rate Zimbabwe ranks 148 out of 162 countries in "Vision of Humanity"' 's Global Peace Index. Perhaps the very low gun ownership is a cause of this ranking, perhaps if the people had guns and the ability to use them we would not have a situation where only the government has guns and uses them in massacres. Just a thought.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:07
  #1300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
What about a country with about 360 million folk, somewhere in the region of 300 million guns, no clear idea of who owns what and in what quantity where there are 30,000 gun deaths each year........


Any thoughts on how to reduce that number?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.