58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

[jgarden]

Divorce Statistics - by country

Divorce to marriage ratio

Another measure of divorces is the divorce to marriage ratio, which is the number of divorces to the number of marriages in a given year (the ratio of the crude divorce rate to the crude marriage rate).

For example, if there are 550 divorces and 1,000 marriages in a given year in a given area, the ratio would be one divorce for every two marriages, e.g. a ratio of 0.55 (55%).

Country - Divorce:marriage ratio - Year
******************************************
Portugal 71% (2013)
Luxembourg 67% (2015)
Belgium 61% (2015)
Spain 58% (2015)
Denmark 57% (2015)
Cuba 56% (2010)
Finland 56% (2015)
France 55% (2015)
Czech Republic 54% (2015)
Netherlands 53% (2015)
Russia 52% (2011)
Estonia 50% (2015)
Canada 48% (2008)
Gibraltar 48% (2010)
Liechtenstein 48% (2010)
Costa Rica 47% (2010)
Sweden 47% (2015)
United States 46% (2014)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography

If "broken families" were a significant causal factor in explaining America's high number of gun deaths, why don't the 17 other nations that have divorce:marriage ratios that exceed that of the United States have corresponding higher gun related homicides?

Canada is perhaps the best nation for comparison, sharing 55250 miles of common border with the US, enjoying approximately the same standard of living, possessing a slightly higher divorce:marriage ratio and shares many of the same values - except when it comes to the private ownership of handguns, semi-automatic weapons and bump stocks!

 

[Lon]

America is not unique among modern democracies with respect to "gangs, black markets, and broken families" - but it is unique with respect to the sheer number of firearms in circulation, the firepower of these weapons and the number of gun related homicides!

Only 5 million in Finland, compared to 322 Million in the U.S. 96% of Finland is exclusively Finnish. 4% Swedish. Less than a percent of anything/anybody else. Statistics MUST always be analyzed. In addition, only on in 3 homes in Finland have guns. You'd have to look up homicides by other means there when taking into account if 'guns' raise homicide rates as well. I hate playing numbers when 58 are dead and adding 26 including an infant. Clearly there is a need to keep guns out of the hands of ex-criminals and the mentally ill.

 

[ClimateSanity]

But that's never been the question. The question I've been asking is if you realize that fixing these 3 specific areas are a better solution to the problem than your proposals......yorzhik reply to TH.

Thats his MO. He addresses a question you never asked. It's all part of the shell game he honed to perfection as a lawyer.

 

[Town Heretic]

Thats his MO. He addresses a question you never asked.

No, I'm a rationalist. That's my MO. I deal in logic the way you deal in make-believe.

How many times have you made a wild claim of fact you couldn't support, fading into the woodwork instead? I've lost count.

It's all part of the shell game he honed to perfection as a lawyer.

One thing that's remained a constant around here is the tendency of people ill equipped for sustained, rational discourse to play the lawyer card when they run out of rope. You managing it at the outset seems about right.

 

[Town Heretic]

Meanwhile looking back to last year, from the article What I Learned Tracking Every Mass Shooting in America and Europe, 2016:

As of publication I had tracked 370 mass shootings in the US, which left 392 dead and 1,502 injured. Meanwhile I tracked only 35 incidents in all of Europe over the same timeframe, which left 53 dead and 174 injured. - Mark Hay, Vice.com, January, 2017

We not only can do better, we have to.

​

 

[Nihilo]

This is a pretty good article for a leftist rag like C-N-N:

http://us.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/texas-gun-culture-sutherland-springs-church-shooting/index.html

 

[Stripe]

This is a pretty good article for a leftist rag like C-N-N:

http://us.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/texas-gun-culture-sutherland-springs-church-shooting/index.html

She says: "What're you going to do with another gun?"
I say: "What're you going to do with another pair of shoes?"

:chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Lon]

Canada is perhaps the best nation for comparison, sharing 55250 miles of common border with the US, enjoying approximately the same standard of living, possessing a slightly higher divorce:marriage ratio and shares many of the same values - except when it comes to the private ownership of handguns, semi-automatic weapons and bump stocks!

36 Million Canadians. Canada 604 homicides 2015

325 Million Americans. In the U.S. 15,696 homicides in 2015 Americans 1 gun for every person.

Canada 1 gun for every 3.

Now think about this, Canada has 2/3 less fewer guns but only a bit over 1/2 less the murder rate. That means, about 35% of violent Canadians figured out a different violent way. :think:

 

[Yorzhik]

The question I've been asking is if you realize that fixing these 3 specific areas are a better solution to the problem than your proposals.

we have task forces on gangs and have been trying our hand at solving all those "simple" problems you note for decades. The ones so easily fixed they haven't been and you can't suggest one literal way to do it.

There were a great number of gangs during prohibition. They were greatly reduced after prohibition ended. We should try doing what worked before instead of doing what hasn't worked, which is what we've been doing for decades.

Can you think of a quick way to solve the problem of black markets with 1 simple law?

Oh, brother...When you have uneven gun laws, by which I mean restrictive gun laws at point A and comparatively lax ones at point B, you necessarily impact the efficacy of the A laws to accomplish their aim.

My point exactly. If the laws in B don't work because A doesn't have them (and A doesn't have the crime problem, either) then remove the laws in B.

It's a lot like dry and wet counties and alcohol. So at that point all the laws really become is instruments for tougher sentencing when you're caught violating them.

You realize you are advocating to bring back prohibition nationwide with this comment, don't you?

Nah, but here's the thing, again, the point isn't to cure other social ills or impact other crimes.

Homicide is not defined by the weapon used to do it.

Yes, they largely are. Gangs and most criminal activity are disproportionately poverty centered problems. They're born in poor neighborhoods and flourish there. Single mothers also tend to be disproportionately in need of public assistance.

Correlation is not causation. We largely got rid of the gangs running the illegal alcohol trade during prohibition and it didn't change the poverty very much.

You could pay poor people to not be poor anymore, and they would still have the same problems. We know this because that's what we currently do. I could suggest we do other things to solve that problem, but I'm only interested in gangs, black markets, and broken families in this discussion.

What I know and what the data shows is that countries with the sorts of laws I'm proposing don't have anything like our problem with mass shootings and firearm homicides, that we have it within our power to save a great many lives...provided we don't listen to caring folks like you.

My way would save thousands of lives, and your way would save tens until your way became a tyranny... then we'd lose a lot more than you'd save.

 

[Nihilo]

America is not unique among modern democracies with respect to "gangs, black markets, and broken families" - but it is unique with respect to the sheer number of firearms in circulation, the firepower of these weapons and the number of gun related homicides!

Right on all three counts. America has a lot killers.

Why does America have so many killers? The stupid answer is guns. If guns make you murderous, then we should be very frightened of our police and armed forces, but gun rights people aren't scared of police and military---we generally are unusually supportive of both in fact. We know guns aren't the problem, that the problem is that we have a lot of killers here, more than Canada, more than England, more than Germany, more than Japan. Not more than Colombia. There are other countries afflicted with more murderers, America is by no means the murderers capital of the world.

 

[Town Heretic]

There were a great number of gangs during prohibition. They were greatly reduced after prohibition ended. We should try doing what worked before instead of doing what hasn't worked, which is what we've been doing for decades.

Gangs run on drug money. You want to legalize heroin, crack, meth, etc?

Can you think of a quick way to solve the problem of black markets with 1 simple law?

I'm not the one who said it was simple, easy.

My point exactly. If the laws in B don't work because A doesn't have them (and A doesn't have the crime problem, either) then remove the laws in B.

That's missing the point exactly, which is that laws work when universal and tough. That's why we do so poorly in comparison, we're lax AND uneven.

You realize you are advocating to bring back prohibition nationwide with this comment, don't you?

I not only don't, I'm not.

Homicide is not defined by the weapon used to do it.

When you can run around killing scores and injuring scores more with a knife that will mean something to me. Nearly half homicides are crimes of passion and happen between people who know one another. The means will usually be the most lethal instrument on hand. Let's take automatic and semi-automatic weapons out of the "on hand" and cut back the death toll, because it's just a lot easier to kill someone, let alone multiple people, with one of those.

Correlation is not causation.

Never said otherwise. But when A causes B and you remove A you get a corresponding correlation.

We largely got rid of the gangs running the illegal alcohol trade during prohibition and it didn't change the poverty very much.

I never suggested that getting rid of an effect is curative of the cause.

You could pay poor people to not be poor anymore, and they would still have the same problems. We know this because that's what we currently do.

It really isn't.

I could suggest we do other things to solve that problem, but I'm only interested in gangs, black markets, and broken families in this discussion.

And I'm still waiting on the one law for any of that "simple" and "easy" to solve fix you think will impact mass shootings.

My way would save thousands of lives

What way? Legalizing drugs? Ending gun laws? What?

and your way would save tens

Rather, you haven't demonstrated you have any particular way that would save anyone, while my way would save thousands each year, from mass shootings and even accidents.

until your way became a tyranny

Which isn't a logical necessity, only an expression of a dark fantasy that hasn't evidenced itself in other democracies that have been doing it better for a fairly long time now.

 

[Stripe]

You realize you are advocating to bring back prohibition nationwide with this comment, don't you?

:chuckle:

 

[Yorzhik]

My point exactly. If the laws in B don't work because A doesn't have them (and A doesn't have the crime problem, either) then remove the laws in B.

That's missing the point exactly, which is that laws work when universal and tough. That's why we do so poorly in comparison, we're lax AND uneven.

I've been agreeing with you that laws work when universal and tough. Just ask NKorea.

It's a lot like dry and wet counties and alcohol. So at that point all the laws really become is instruments for tougher sentencing when you're caught violating them.

You realize you are advocating to bring back prohibition nationwide with this comment, don't you?

I not only don't, I'm not.

So, there aren't any dry and wet counties? And all the laws don't become instruments for tougher sentencing when caught violating them?

Correlation is not causation.

Never said otherwise.

Until your next sentence!

But when A causes B

You're just a bundle of contradiction.

OK. We won't call it tyranny. We'll call it "universal and tougher law society".

 

[Town Heretic]

I've been agreeing with you that laws work when universal and tough. Just ask NKorea.

Or France, or even Switzerland, both doing much better jobs of enacting universal gun laws while maintaining vital democracies.

Or pick another Western democracy on the point. Any one of them. They're all doing much better at it than we are and the death toll from firearms here underscores the distinction by comparison.

So, there aren't any dry and wet counties?

Why do you care if you're agreeing with me on the point?

And all the laws don't become instruments for tougher sentencing when caught violating them?

Sure. When you have laws that facilitate something in one county that you forbid in the next, people tend to go to the easy access point to get whatever it is that's forbidden. In Alabama we have I think around 24 dry counties, mostly at the northern end of the state. But even in those counties you have wet cities. So outside of point of sales and violations noted in transport (usually some idiot with an open can that leads to an open trunk) you don't have any real enforcement. Prosecutors understand that the mix defeats the point and there's no real public campaign to come down on people who want a beer with their football at home. Or, when live in a dry county, chances are there's a wet city in it and that's where people go to drink socially.

Until your next sentence! You're just a bundle of contradiction.

Well, no. Causality exists. That means that there will be times when A causes B (nothing more or less than a representation of a causality established by some objective means) and when that happens you will see a statistical correlation.

The point of that sentence is to note that while correlation isn't inherently causality it can still be a reflection of causality. You appear to be gambling lives on the chance of a confounding variable, to use statistical jargon. An unaccounted for variable that may be producing or influencing the outcome. One way to address confounding variables is in repetition of an experiment.

OK. We won't call it tyranny. We'll call it "universal and tougher law society".

Call Switzerland totalitarian if it makes you happy. But you're just going to look goofy for the effort.

 

[Yorzhik]

Or France, or even Switzerland, both doing much better jobs of enacting universal gun laws while maintaining vital democracies.

Or pick another Western democracy on the point. Any one of them. They're all doing much better at it than we are and the death toll from firearms here underscores the distinction by comparison.

There is no reason to go toward tyranny just because other nations haven't gone that far in their recent past.

Why do you care if you're agreeing with me on the point?

So you'll know when you are right on a point.

Sure. When you have laws that facilitate something in one county that you forbid in the next, people tend to go to the easy access point to get whatever it is that's forbidden. In Alabama we have I think around 24 dry counties, mostly at the northern end of the state. But even in those counties you have wet cities. So outside of point of sales and violations noted in transport (usually some idiot with an open can that leads to an open trunk) you don't have any real enforcement. Prosecutors understand that the mix defeats the point and there's no real public campaign to come down on people who want a beer with their football at home. Or, when live in a dry county, chances are there's a wet city in it and that's where people go to drink socially.

That's how you make criminals out of innocent people. Instead of understand right from wrong and instituting what is right in the law, you believe that whatever lawmakers make as the law is what is right. What is right is that humans should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun, and buying alcohol isn't wrong.

Well, no. Causality exists.

Of course it does. But taking guns from people does not cause a change in violent crime, as the data clearly shows.
View attachment 26031View attachment 26033

 

[Nihilo]

Is what Paddock did a war crime? If we were at war, and he was a combatant, was that a war crime?

 

[jgarden]

36 Million Canadians. Canada 604 homicides 2015

325 Million Americans. In the U.S. 15,696 homicides in 2015 Americans 1 gun for every person.

Canada 1 gun for every 3.

Now think about this, Canada has 2/3 less fewer guns but only a bit over 1/2 less the murder rate. That means, about 35% of violent Canadians figured out a different violent way. :think:

The Canadian data was "Homicide offences, number and rate, by province and territory
(Number of homicides)" - it provides no breakdown as to the % attributed to guns, knives, poison, etc.

 

[Town Heretic]

There is no reason to go toward tyranny just because other nations haven't gone that far in their recent past.

There's less reason to insist on tyranny without evidence of it and every reason to stem the tide of needless, violent death in our country.

So you'll know when you are right on a point.

That was excellent. Wrong, but excellent.

That's how you make criminals out of innocent people.

No, it's how potential victims make the world they live in a little safer and saner.

Instead of understand right from wrong and instituting what is right in the law you believe that whatever lawmakers make as the law is what is right

Rather, I know that making universal and tougher gun laws in this country will make what happened in Texas less likely, which is the point. That it will make us safer in our concerts, in our churches, and children safer in their schools. I know this because everywhere it's done the result is the same and where it isn't the death tolls and carnage continue to mount.

What is right is that humans should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun, and buying alcohol isn't wrong.

You can defend your castle with a breech loader. And I didn't say buying either was wrong.

taking guns from people does not cause a change in violent crime, as the data clearly shows.

It logically has to, as I set out prior. No knife sponsored homicides would have taken the place of Las Vegas, by way of... but if you mix enough things in the impact of a specifically targeted law can be marginalized, statistically and on a chart. The unassailable fact remains that mass shootings, mass murders in our concerts, churches and schoolyards can be dramatically impacted by strong, universal gun laws. And that's all those laws are aimed at. If we want a less violent society in general there are, as we've both acknowledged, a host of issues to help us arrive there and we should continue to do our best on every front.

In the meantime, we can make Sandy Hook and every mass shooting tragedy less likely and ourselves safer from the threat of it.

 

[Stripe]

It's how potential victims make the world they live in a little safer and saner.

The people in the church in Texas would have been safer had they been armed.

Making universal and tougher gun laws in this country will make what happened in Texas less likely.

The rules said nobody in the church was allowed a weapon. Your precious regulations cost lives.

If there had been just one good man who was willing to ignore your death-trap regulations, 27 lives could have been saved.

But you want more.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Lon]

The Canadian data was "Homicide offences, number and rate, by province and territory
(Number of homicides)" - it provides no breakdown as to the % attributed to guns, knives, poison, etc.

I don't think you followed. My point was that many Canadians had to necessarily murder a 'different' way than guns. There are only guns in 1 of 3 homes. You 'might' be able to find statistics that show that a disproportionate number were from 1/3 of gun-carrying Canadians, though. :think: