Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A rather cute, but blatant, troll attempt; however, the graphs are only marginally similar on a superficial basis, and certainly not on a more in-depth analysis.

I stand corrected. Is there a spearate table with that as well?

Frazzled wrote:

The UK figures include types of assault not included in the US stats, such as an assault which does not lead to serious bodily harm and assaults without a weapon.

Prove that.

Well, the table is "crimes reported by the police", and the UK includes lots of things in "violent crimes", as per the crime report that I linked to above. For example, 'All violence' includes wounding, assault with minor injury, assault without injury and robbery, while the US does not include all of those types of crime.

Melissia wrote:A rather cute, but blatant, troll attempt; however, the graphs are only marginally similar on a superficial basis, and certainly not on a more in-depth analysis.

Would you like to back that up are or you saying the statistics wrong for the sake of saying they're wrong?

xole wrote:

Melissia wrote:A rather cute, but blatant, troll attempt; however, the graphs are only marginally similar on a superficial basis, and certainly not on a more in-depth analysis.

Would you like to back that up are or you saying the statistics wrong for the sake of saying they're wrong?

She's saying correlation doesn't imply causation...
This is the ice cream causes drowning argument again...

[quoteThis is the ice cream causes drowning argument again...

purplefood wrote:

xole wrote:

Melissia wrote:A rather cute, but blatant, troll attempt; however, the graphs are only marginally similar on a superficial basis, and certainly not on a more in-depth analysis.

Would you like to back that up are or you saying the statistics wrong for the sake of saying they're wrong?

She's saying correlation doesn't imply causation...
This is the ice cream causes drowning argument again...

Or lack of pirates causing global warming...

Actually, I was stating that the statistics themselves don't actually line up. Although I doubt statistical analysis is something you really want to chat about, I'll bite.

Not only are the graphs on different time frames, but violent crime started going up sooner than number of abortions-- unless you want to claim violent crime causes abortions, perhaps? But if you want to claim that women who are raped should be denied abortions, you are scum and there's nothing else to say to you.

That unpleasantness aside, the graphs themselves aren't well aligned. At 1981, when the number of abortions per year leveled off, the rate of violent crime had a tiny dip then continued rising, reaching a peak in 1993. The time between 1981 and 1990 had a relatively stable number of abortions per year before going down very, very gradually and in fact it was already heading down by the time violent crime reached its peak in 1993-- violent crime having risen up for the three intervening years.

And that's just the statistical analysis. In truth, the reason behind the reduction in abortions at about 1990 has more to do with a change in culture since then-- the number of teen pregnancies itself peaked in the late '80s and then steadily declined in the following twenty years. With less pregnancies came less need of abortion, thus the abortion numbers decreased. Fewer babies have been born to teenagers in 2010 than were born in any year since 1940-- and this despite the fact that US fertility has stayed around 2.0 on average for about fourty years.

My guess as to the rise of video games as a means to let off steam and allow one to safely practice violent urges has a far stronger correlation (video games have increased exponentially in popularity since the late '80s), but I still don't claim it's anything other than a guess.

purplefood wrote:

xole wrote:

Melissia wrote:A rather cute, but blatant, troll attempt; however, the graphs are only marginally similar on a superficial basis, and certainly not on a more in-depth analysis.

Would you like to back that up are or you saying the statistics wrong for the sake of saying they're wrong?

She's saying correlation doesn't imply causation...
This is the ice cream causes drowning argument again...

Those are two things completely unrelated.

Unwanted children and crime rates are a different matter. People with bad family situations are more likely to commit crimes. Most crimes are committed by young adults. Crime rates started dropping about 20 years after legalized abortion. If those people never came to be, they are significantly less likely to commit a crime.

Mel: video games get BLAMED an awful lot for violence; you'd think there would've a study or twelve out by now.
I think the downward trend in crime has more to do with the upward trend in imprisonment and baby boomer criminals reaching middle age and settling down.

Melissia wrote: But if you want to claim that women who are raped should be denied abortions, you are scum and there's nothing else to say to you.

When the hell did I say that?

AustonT wrote:Mel: video games get BLAMED an awful lot for violence

So was television, comic books, cheap novels, high skirts, hollywood in general, both political parties, any non-Christian religion (or non-religious belief set), and just about anything else that the moral guardians can latch on to and lay blame on.

Just because the media is stupid doesn't mean my hypothesis is incorrect. And actually there have been studies, IIRC, that have suggested that video games help people cope with violent urges. I'll look for some later today. The media has ignored them because it's not profitable.

xole wrote:

Melissia wrote: But if you want to claim that women who are raped should be denied abortions, you are scum and there's nothing else to say to you.

When the hell did I say that?

I see you haven't actually read my post. Go and read it. Or perhaps just admit that you are wrong.

Either way works for me.

Melissia...what is it you think I am trying to argue for?

That violent crime and number of abortions are correlated, or that one causes the other. You know. The claim you made at least twice thus far in this thread.

Which really should have been obvious considering that's exactly what I argued against.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Mel: video games get BLAMED an awful lot for violence

So was television, comic books, cheap novels, high skirts, hollywood in general, both political parties, any non-Christian religion (or non-religious belief set), and just about anything else that the moral guardians can latch on to and lay blame on.

Just because the media is stupid doesn't mean my hypothesis is incorrect. And actually there have been studies, IIRC, that have suggested that video games help people cope with violent urges. I'll look for some later today. The media has ignored them because it's not profitable.

xole wrote:

Melissia wrote: But if you want to claim that women who are raped should be denied abortions, you are scum and there's nothing else to say to you.

When the hell did I say that?

I see you haven't actually read my post. Go and read it. Or perhaps just admit that you are wrong.

Either way works for me.

Don't cherry pick just to argue.
http://ideas.time.com/2011/12/07/video-games-dont-make-kids-violent/

I was mostly trying to avoid quote spam.

Melissia wrote:That violent crime and number of abortions are correlated, or that one causes the other. You know. The claim you made at least twice thus far in this thread.

Which really should have been obvious considering that's exactly what I argued against.

Yes...but I think you think I am arguing they are positively related. I am arguing they are negatively related. Which is why I said twice to scoot the graph over 20 years(the average age of offenders).

i am rather pro-abortion.

You didn't say that specifically-- your "20 years later" statement was really vague.

My apologies. I just assumed people would know what I meant. I mean, how could I argue that abortions increased crime rates? "I just got this massive problem off my hands so now I'm going to go punch someone in the face!"

Oh well. That was fun. Peace?

You'd be surprised what people can argue...

And yeah, peace.

SilverMK2 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

xole wrote:

Melissia wrote:A rather cute, but blatant, troll attempt; however, the graphs are only marginally similar on a superficial basis, and certainly not on a more in-depth analysis.

Would you like to back that up are or you saying the statistics wrong for the sake of saying they're wrong?

She's saying correlation doesn't imply causation...
This is the ice cream causes drowning argument again...

Or lack of pirates causing global warming...

May you be touched by His noodly appendages.

Wow, did this topic get far afield. What a surprise.

I just want to challenge the notion that a (assuming low penetration = high shot count) shotgun is a good home defense weapon. The reason stated was low barrier object penetration.

Low penetration of walls equals a low penetration of bad guy. Just denim clothing on an intruder is going to turn that bird shot at anything other than point blank range into a bad rash. You need a good 8-12" of target penetration to hit vital organs. The problem is that once you hit that point with a shotgun (somewhere in the #1 or #2 range) then you are back to shooting through walls... but now you are doing it with a less discriminate device. If you use 00 Magnum you are putting around 8 .30 pellets through multiple walls, and who knows where they are going? Not a good thing unless you have a very good defensive position with a hard back stop. For my personal situation this works (shooting down a stairwell from an elevated position) but in most apartment or flat home situations it would not.

An argument can be made that the humble .223 is a good home defense weapon. There is high initial penetration, but once that little bullet hits it's initial resistance it expends energy quickly. The low recoil and high power make them flat shooting and accurate. On a good carbine length AR platform, this is weapon that is easy to maneuver, is going to hit what you aim at in home defense situations, and has enough ammunition capacity with 20 rnd mags to carry the encounter to it's full conclusion in all but full on gun battle conditions.

.223 at short range don't tumble as well, and frankly are really awkward on those tight corners. A shotgun is too.

now is you're able to sit tight then either is good. If you have to go and get the kids, its a problem.

Depends on how you move around the corner

 Jihadin wrote:
Depends on how you move around the corner

Slice that pie Mo-Fo!!!

More difficult when trying to shepherd 2.5 kids though.

Wife: why are you spinning around the bed post.
Frazzled: its a wall. I'm practicing tactical priority. I want to break top 25% by your birthday next year.
Wife: ok...
Frazzled: You like my new shooting vest? I count 10 no make that at least 11 pockets.
Wife.: is it washable?
Frazzled: heck yea! I just have to remember to not leave my tacticool flashlight in it.
Wife: boys and their toys.
Frazzled: Don't forget we need to get tacticool cargo pants before September. We have to totally pwon the teenagers in paintball this year.
Wife: YES!

Bit late to the party, but as a gun enthusiast, I think my opinion is valid...

America's laws surrounding weapons have basis in fear, paranoia, and misunderstanding, like a lot of other things. I think certain laws make sense (overly high capacity magazines), but others do not (caliber restrictions, carry laws). Certainly, the problem isn't just the firearms themselves, so I think it would be worth some honest, unbiased research into gun violence to determine a solution.

As a law-abiding tax payer, I would agree to "gun licences", where you need a permit to legally use your firearms, and you must renew your license every few years. All of your firearms must be referenced in a system of sorts (which is already done), plus you have to take a little short written test or something. After that, you can do whatever the hell you want with them.

I could see it working. There could be different classes of licenses, just like driver's licenses, for specific things, like NFA items, manufacturing. I suppose a concealed carry permit could be a separate thing.

Kind of just throwing thoughts out there. I'll edit this later, maybe.

Captain Fantastic wrote:
Bit late to the party, but as a gun enthusiast, I think my opinion is valid...

America's laws surrounding weapons have basis in fear, paranoia, and misunderstanding, like a lot of other things. I think certain laws make sense (overly high capacity magazines), but others do not (caliber restrictions, carry laws). Certainly, the problem isn't just the firearms themselves, so I think it would be worth some honest, unbiased research into gun violence to determine a solution.

As a law-abiding tax payer, I would agree to "gun licences", where you need a permit to legally use your firearms, and you must renew your license every few years. All of your firearms must be referenced in a system of sorts (which is already done), plus you have to take a little short written test or something. After that, you can do whatever the hell you want with them.

I could see it working. There could be different classes of licenses, just like driver's licenses, for specific things, like NFA items, manufacturing. I suppose a concealed carry permit could be a separate thing.

Kind of just throwing thoughts out there. I'll edit this later, maybe.

I disagree... registering handguns didn't really start until the Brady Bill (I think).

We just need to educate folks that guns are TOOLS... no different than a hatchet.

Im obviously not from america so i dont know what its like over there, but in ireland anything shooting at strength above 1 Joule (about 328 feet per second) classifies as a firearm and is considered illegal, and licenses are very hard to get. Now a paitball gun is about 3-5J afaik so if you had one in your house/car/somewhere else you get a fine and can even be jailed for not having a gun license. but there is a very high crime percentage, there are problems with not enough prison space (but thats also due to slowed laws, you can get jailed for not paying rent) and a lot of people get shot anyhow.
So i think we need to maintain balance here, not just say "oh ban all firearms" or "oh frakk firearm laws"

 whembly wrote:
We just need to educate folks that guns are TOOLS... no different than a hatchet.

Except a hatchet is actually a tool, whilst a gun is something designed solely to kill things...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We just need to educate folks that guns are TOOLS... no different than a hatchet.

Except a hatchet is actually a tool, whilst a gun is something designed solely to kill things...

No, a gun is designed to shoot things. Whether or not it kills something depends on what you're shooting at. And besides, even if we agree it's designed to kill (which is not something every gun is designed for - I'm looking at you, sport rifles like what is used in the Olympics), that doesn't mean it's not a tool. Sometimes you need to kill things. If you're a hunter, you need something to take down game like deer, elk, moose, bear. If you're a farmer (good chance you're a hunter then too) or even just live in the country there's a good chance you could use something to kill varmints like raccoons, possums, coyotes, etc.