You are more likely
to be murdered with a gun in the United States than to be murdered by any means in Somalia and Yemen.
Yes, that’s right. Let
me restate it: Gun violence is more likely to be your cause
of death here in the streets and homes of America than any form of homicide in either of these god-forsaken, war-torn,
chaotic third-world countries (and I’m only talking about homicides here,
not including accidental shootings, suicides, law enforcement, or defensive
shootings).
New Trajectory has the story
It's so much better to be hacked to death by a machete. . .
ReplyDeleteIf you bothered to read my post at all, Greg, you would see that the U.S. homicide-by-firearms rate is higher than ALL forms of homicide in either Somalia or Yemen (including machete).
DeleteJust a little actual research would have revealed that there were 7,574 deaths in 2008 in Somalia. With a population of 9,330,872, that puts the homicide rate a little higher than your claim, well, a lot higher. Also, when looking at your source for Somali homicide rates, didn't you find it odd that in one year the rate is 90% less than the two years prior? Considering the homicide rate in East Africa is 19/100k, and the previous rate for Somalia was 33.1, the most recent rate you quoted is suspect. If your calculator works, you can figure out the rate from my first sentence.
ReplyDeleteBut why stop there? Surely the nation of South Africa will have a much lower violent crime rate than the U.S. because they have had extremely aggressive gun control laws on the books for years. Uh oh. South Africa's per capita murder rate is about 41 per 100,000 people if you average it over the span from 2000 to 2009. That's over 7 times higher than the average murder rate in the U.S. over the same time span.
Deletesource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Sources, Bill? And are those deaths due to homicide? And I find it interesting that you lump all of "East Africa" together. Why is that? Stick to the countries in question, Bill. And what's the matter with YOUR calculator, Bill?
DeleteThere certainly are countries worse than the U.S. (and Somalia) -- I don't disagree, and that isn't the purpose of that post. Most of those nations are also in active warfare (such as Iraq). But I find it interesting that you are lumping together nine years worth of data, not long after the end of apartheid, during a particularly brutal period of readjustment in South Africa. Is this in an attempt to make the stats look as skewed as possible?
DeleteNice attempt to make a red herring argument by bringing in countries other than the ones I posted about.
Bill, how about actually citing your "research"? Are your deaths actually homicides of citizens in Somalia? Or are they *all* deaths? Or are they including military combatants?
DeleteMy calculator works just fine. Why doesn't yours?
@ Capn: nice try to derail the conversation by bringing in other countries. Yes, there are several countries that have higher rates of shootings. Iraq, for instance. But that's not the point of the post, is it?
DeleteBill, it's funny how "just a little research" always provides evidence to support your biased opinion.
DeleteBaldr, I see you're still ignoring the fact that there was an inexplicable 90% drop in homicides over a two year span, in a country that doesn't have a working government and that number was civilian deaths, oh, and in just one city in Somalia.
DeleteHuman Rights 2008 report: 7,674 people were killed mostly civilians in Mogadishu
mikeb, yeah, it is funny. It's also funny how when I quote CDC WISQARS, you say it unbelievable, but then support this botched claim by Baldr.
Do you have a link for that report, Bill? Was this as a result of military action? And are those 7,674 people killed only in the year of 2008, or was that over a span of years? It's pertinent to the debate.
DeleteHowever, I'm not quite certain what your point is. In one sentence you seem bothered by an apparent drop in homicides in "one city in Somalia", and in the next sentence you seem bothered by an increase in the number killed.
And how did those numbers affect the statistics I cited? And how do those numbers compare to the U.S. statistics? Again, these are pertinent details you seem to be missing in your "debate."
Again, share a link.... Otherwise, we have no way to know if you are trying to mislead and skew the argument.
Baldr said.."However, I'm not quite certain what your point is."
DeleteYeah, after reading the paragraph above, I confused myself. I was making two points.
(1)You are ignoring the fact that from 2002 to 2004 there was a reported 90% drop in the homicide rate in all of Somalia. This makes the information suspect. In a country with no working government, which is run by criminals, a drop in homicides like that doesn't happen and you can't reliably rely on the reported homicide rate for your comparison.
(2) You claimed that the latest data that you could find for Somalia was in 2004, but 2004 is not the last year crime data was release about Somalia, but it takes actual Research to find it. Since Somalia doesn't have a working central government, there is no government agency to collect and process crime data, therefore you'd have to look for outside sources, such as Human Rights Organizations, or maybe a United Nations agency, or maybe even News Reports.
Baldr said..."And how did those numbers affect the statistics I cited?"
Since you can't figure out how to divide numbers to get to rates/100k I'll show you. In 2010 the population in Somalia was 9,330,872. Divide this by 100,000 = 93.3. From the human rights report, there were 7,574 civilians killed, so we divide the number of people killed by 93.3 to get the rate of 81.17/100K. In 2008, according to CDC, the firearm related homicide rate was 4.0/100K. This is contrary to your statement You are more likely to be murdered with a gun in the United States than to be murdered by any means in Somalia and Yemen.
I'm going to need more guns :) Thanks for helping me realize this.
ReplyDeleteI suspect MikeB also believes the violent crime statistics reported by the UK, as well. Set aside, of course, that even their own cops admit that said statistics are bullshit.
ReplyDeleteMoonshine7102
All statistics should be suspected of being bullshit. That's why you need to use your head in these discussions. Unfortunately, you biased gun-rights fanatics cannot do that, you're too prejudiced (in the literal sense of the word).
DeleteOkay, let's use our heads. Which of the following is more likely:
Delete1. You are more likely to be shot to death in the U.S., or
2. You are more likely to be killed in a country that has been ravaged by war for the last two decades, tacitly supports piracy, and which has been unable to form a central government since 1991?
After speaking to several Somalis who have fled that failed state and resettled in my town, I feel I know the answer.
Moonshine7102
Moony: Points just miss you, don't they?
DeleteWe're not the ones trying to compare this planet's most powerful and wealthy nation with one of its poorest. You are.
The fact that you are more likely to be a gun violence victim in the US than in a country that needs to improve to be third world is telling.
@ Moonshine: I don't doubt that Somalis have fled their nation due to the war. That doesn't change the statistics, though. I should also share that I personally know at least two people, plus a family of three, who have fled the United States because of the violence here.
DeleteIt's not only the Somalis who flee. How many people who can afford to move choose to live in Newark or Camden?
DeleteNo one goes to Somalia to vacation so I really don't care
ReplyDeleteA reporter for NPR said that when you land at Mogadishu airport, you get a form to fill out that includes the question, "What caliber?"
DeleteThey should ask the same thing when they land in the U.S., then.
Delete@ Greg, given what I wrote in the post (did you even bother to read it??), I think that question should be asked of people visiting the U.S., too.
DeleteNo, Oregonian, I see no reason to visit your site. You don't allow a discussion there. Mikeb doesn't understand why I make a big deal out of that, but I don't want to be merely a passive reader. I'm willing to participate in a conversation--particularly one that isn't heavily moderated--but I don't have the time to spend reading your opinions, especially since I already know what they are.
DeleteSure, Greg, but refusing to read a post, and then critiquing it anyway as if you had, just makes you an ignorant baffoon.
DeleteSo you're saying you never read anything on the net that doesn't allow commenting? Or do you only limit that argument to blogs that have opposing views?