Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Splurges unrelated nonsense about GDP and climate change yet I'm deflecting in asking for someone to make a serious argument for the statistic directly related to the topic and the one currently being discussed.So.
Does Norway have a bigger mass shooting problem than the United States, as indicated by the discussed statistic?
Damn you're so dumb. You're giving pooty bot a serious run for his money in the stupidity department. My point in bringing up stats about climate change and GDP of certain countries was pointing out how you ignore stats you don't like and embrace those which support what you believe but since you're too f***ing dumb to understand that I'm done wasting my time with a retard like you.
I'm outta here for the night.
So I looked the numbers up myself seeing as we never had any volunteers dedicated enough to fight their own corner.
I worked back by year from 2019 using the gun violence archive definition of 4 casualties or more (either fatal or not) not including the perpetrator(s).
I got as far back as 2018 and my running total is 657.
So that's
Norway 1 - 657 United States
Only 17 more years to add to America's total.
Nope, the true numbers are
Norway 1.888
US 0.089
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Why not just put the total number of mass shootings per country?
Because some countries have far more people in it and criminologists rarely represent numbers as totals but as per capita figures.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Frequency of mass shootings per million people is possibly the most useless and pointless statistic I've ever seen in relation to mass shootings.
I'll help you understand why we do this in statistics:
Scenario: I want to go on vacation.
I won a free vacation to two countries but I can only choose 1. They are equal in almost all ways except intentional homicides which appears to be truly random in both countries. I want to go to the safer country.
Country 1: 20 intentional homicides per year. The population is ~2000.
Country 2: 2,000 intentional homicides per year. The population is ~200,000,000.
Analysis:
Country 2 seems very unsafe by your logic. Terribly unsafe, in fact. 2000 people get killed every year? That's terrible!
But wait...that country also has 200 million people in it.
How is that murder rate compared to the population, as a whole? Perhaps it is not nearly as bad as I thought:
Country 1: 1000 people are murdered for every 100,000 people. That's absurdly high. That's 1% of the population murdered, each year. WTF?
Country 2: 1 person is murdered per every 100,000 people. That's incredibly low.
Result: I choose Country 2. It is a far safer choice for my vacation. Also, addressing homicide in this country will be difficult since the homicide rate is quite low.
Addressing the homicide in country 1 seems very important. It is absurdly high and unsafe to be there. Simple policy changes could save lots of lives.
With larger populations comes much larger numbers in everything. They eat more food, sleep more, use more energy, etc. These things happen in ratios with the population...pretty much. Obviously, there are exceptions and that's what makes sociology and criminology a bit more interesting than pure data.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Can anyone seriously argue that Norway has a bigger problem with mass shootings than the United States?
I don't think anyone did. And if they did, they are idiots:
Here's what I had to say about the red herring known as Norway:
Originally posted by dadudemon
So that's it, huh? Only legit rebuttal [just Norway is an exception to that list because of the absurdly high body count in one mass shooting] you can think of, eh? So you agree with 93% of my point. That's the same as almost directly agreeing.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Here's a statistic.The United States has had 16 x as many mass shootings this month as Norway has had this century.
Don't despair, there's time for Norway to.catch up.
The US also has 62 times the population of Norway.
Care to address literally any other country besides Norway? Any of them?
What about the entire list? Or is playing around with people who suck at arguing fun for you? 🙂
Edit - Here's the actual point:
The United States is incorrectly and inappropriately represented in other countries and in the media as having a mass shooting problem. Compared to our peers, we are not even in the top 10. We have a much larger population than most countries, as well, which allows for large numbers to be dishonestly used to misrepresent how often things happen in the US.
I'd like to see number of violent actions per 100,000. I'm betting the UK is near the top of the list. Scotland probably still tops the list even for a modern country. The US is not as violent as other western countries. We just have a shitload more of people here so we get more raw numbers.
As a person who walked the streets at nigh, many times, in NYC, LA, Mexico City, Houston, etc...I still wouldn't do that in Glasgow or Mexico City. That's because I don't want my beautiful face destroyed, obviously.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because some countries have far more people in it and criminologists rarely represent numbers as totals but as per capita figures.I'll help you understand why we do this in statistics:
[b]Scenario: I want to go on vacation.
I won a free vacation to two countries but I can only choose 1. They are equal in almost all ways except intentional homicides which appears to be truly random in both countries. I want to go to the safer country.
Country 1: 20 intentional homicides per year. The population is ~2000.
Country 2: 2,000 intentional homicides per year. The population is ~200,000,000.
Analysis:
Country 2 seems very unsafe by your logic. Terribly unsafe, in fact. 2000 people get killed every year? That's terrible!
But wait...that country also has 200 million people in it.
How is that murder rate compared to the population, as a whole? Perhaps it is not nearly as bad as I thought:
Country 1: 1000 people are murdered for every 100,000 people. That's absurdly high. That's 1% of the population murdered, each year. WTF?
Country 2: 1 person is murdered per every 100,000 people. That's incredibly low.
Result: I choose Country 2. It is a far safer choice for my vacation. Also, addressing homicide in this country will be difficult since the homicide rate is quite low.
Addressing the homicide in country 1 seems very important. It is absurdly high and unsafe to be there. Simple policy changes could save lots of lives.
With larger populations comes much larger numbers in everything. They eat more food, sleep more, use more energy, etc. These things happen in ratios with the population...pretty much. Obviously, there are exceptions and that's what makes sociology and criminology a bit more interesting than pure data. [/B]
You what country has the highest crime rate per capita in the world?
Vatican City
Originally posted by dadudemon
The US also has 62 times the population of Norway.Care to address literally any other country besides Norway? Any of them?
What about the entire list? Or is playing around with people who suck at arguing fun for you? 🙂
Edit - Here's the actual point:
The United States is incorrectly and inappropriately represented in other countries and in the media as having a mass shooting problem. Compared to our peers, we are not even in the top 10. We have a much larger population than most countries, as well, which allows for large numbers to be dishonestly used to misrepresent how often things happen in the US.
I'd like to see number of violent actions per 100,000. I'm betting the UK is near the top of the list. Scotland probably still tops the list even for a modern country. The US is not as violent as other western countries. We just have a shitload more of people here so we get more raw numbers.
As a person who walked the streets at nigh, many times, in NYC, LA, Mexico City, Houston, etc...I still wouldn't do that in Glasgow or Mexico City. That's because I don't want my beautiful face destroyed, obviously.
You both have and wouldn't walk around Mexico City?
I think you misread my first line.
Are you drunk?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because some countries have far more people in it and criminologists rarely represent numbers as totals but as per capita figures.I'll help you understand why we do this in statistics:
[b]Scenario: I want to go on vacation.
I won a free vacation to two countries but I can only choose 1. They are equal in almost all ways except intentional homicides which appears to be truly random in both countries. I want to go to the safer country.
Country 1: 20 intentional homicides per year. The population is ~2000.
Country 2: 2,000 intentional homicides per year. The population is ~200,000,000.
Analysis:
Country 2 seems very unsafe by your logic. Terribly unsafe, in fact. 2000 people get killed every year? That's terrible!
But wait...that country also has 200 million people in it.
How is that murder rate compared to the population, as a whole? Perhaps it is not nearly as bad as I thought:
Country 1: 1000 people are murdered for every 100,000 people. That's absurdly high. That's 1% of the population murdered, each year. WTF?
Country 2: 1 person is murdered per every 100,000 people. That's incredibly low.
Result: I choose Country 2. It is a far safer choice for my vacation. Also, addressing homicide in this country will be difficult since the homicide rate is quite low.
Addressing the homicide in country 1 seems very important. It is absurdly high and unsafe to be there. Simple policy changes could save lots of lives.
With larger populations comes much larger numbers in everything. They eat more food, sleep more, use more energy, etc. These things happen in ratios with the population...pretty much. Obviously, there are exceptions and that's what makes sociology and criminology a bit more interesting than pure data. [/B]
Thank you for explaining to him how statistics work
The more I read your post the less it makes sense.
The number of times something happens dishonestly represents how often something happens.
From the man attempting to peddle a statistic that makes out Norway as having a bigger problem with mass shootings than the United States.
It doesn't. It quite obviously doesn't. It's ok to say that. It doesn't mean you have to do anything about it.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0I think DDM must be doing his trolling thing. Look who his cheerleaders are.
The more I read your post the less it makes sense.The number of times something happens dishonestly represents how often something happens.
From the man attempting to peddle a statistic that makes out Norway as having a bigger problem with mass shootings than the United States.
It doesn't. It quite obviously doesn't. It's ok to say that. It doesn't mean you have to do anything about it.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You both have and wouldn't walk around Mexico City?
Yes. Hence why I wouldn't walk around Mexico City again, at night. Stick to the tourist routes and you should be fine. I had one close call at night when I strayed from the tourist routes. To do that again, I would likely need an armed escort.
See, thinking of anything else other than a contradiction wasn't hard, was it? 🙂