The argument doesn't seek to change facts, it seeks to invite a broader view of the facts at hand, and the issue, which is murder. Reduction in murder is the goal. Recognizing that murder is very closely related to poverty, not gun ownership, is relevant if you're honest and objective about that goal. If you discover that reducing gun ownership increases knife related deaths, that would be very relevant to the goal. It would then be irrelevant to talk about guns. Right?

Hypothetically speaking...

▲

selcuka 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Hypothetically speaking...

Exactly...

> murder is very closely related to poverty

US is the only first world country, together with Russia, in the top 100 intentional homicide list [1]. The previous 3 countries are Burundi, Mayotte, Guadeloupe, and the next 3 countries are Greenland, Zambia, Liechtenstein (Greenland and Liechtenstein are probably round-off errors with less than 5 deaths per year). Are you really suggesting that those countries should be the benchmark for the US?

Now, according to the World Bank [2], the poverty rate in the US is 18%, which is very close to the UK (18.6%). The intentional homicide rates, though, are vastly different (5.763 vs 1.148). How does the poverty argument explain the 400% difference?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-r...

▲

trimethylpurine 4 days ago | parent [-]

> US is the only first world country, together with Russia, in the top 100 intentional homicide list

US is number one or two in immigration from 3rd world countries, and that's just by legal numbers, without considering illegal immigration, in which the US is also estimated to be number one.

This fits right in with the observable data you've shared.

You aren't actually claiming that the guns by themselves are making people murderous, right? That wouldn't be a scientifically sound hypothesis without some evidence to back. But I'll be interested to see if you can come up with something to tie those together.

Let's take Utah (since it's the topic of the thread) as an example to try to apply your argument. It has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, and one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

How does your argument, or any other, explain that?

▲

selcuka 4 days ago | parent [-]

> US is number one or two in immigration from 3rd world countries

This is good, because over the last 150 years, immigrants have been found to be significantly less likely to commit crimes than the U.S.-born [1] [2] [3].

> It has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, and one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

I didn't deny that poverty is a factor. That's why I compared US with UK, where average poverty numbers are very close to each other. Also, Utah’s rate is low for the U.S. but still higher than many countries globally [4].

[1] https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2024/03/immigrants-are...

[2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w31440

[3] https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-immigrants-have-low-homici...

[4] https://ibis.utah.gov/epht-view/indicator/important_facts/Ho...

▲

trimethylpurine 2 days ago | parent [-]

I wrote "third world."

You've given irrelevant data. Hopefully by accident because I'd like to believe your arguments are made in good faith.

Find stats for third world immigrants to make your point.

I'll fast forward the conversation for you, country of origin is statistically very significant.

Just like you, I don't like that this is true. But fixing problems requires honesty and objectivity.

Hiding problems with bs stats isn't going to help anyone. That's how we got here.

▲

selcuka 2 days ago | parent [-]

> You've given irrelevant data

In fact, calling it "irrelevant" is pushing the boundaries of good faith. It definitely includes "third world" immigrants, too. Apparently we haven't been able to find any statistical significance of the country of origin [1]:

> According to the study, this is the case for almost every region in the world that is a major source of immigrants to the United States. As of 2019, immigrants from China and eastern and southern Europe were committing the fewest number of crimes — as measured by incarceration rates — relative to U.S.-born individuals.

The exception is Mexican and Central American immigrants, but their incarceration rates are similar to, not _higher_ than U.S.-born individuals:

> The exception is Mexican and Central American immigrants, [...] Incarceration rates among Mexican and Central American immigrants were similar to those of U.S.-born individuals between 1980 and 2005.

> Hiding problems with bs stats isn't going to help anyone.

You've given no data at all. As it stands, everything you posted are your personal opinions.

[1] https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigra...

▲

trimethylpurine a day ago | parent [-]

You've now given data that makes my argument. I don't need to provide citation where we're talking about your data.

What more do you need here? Immigration from third world countries increases crime and murder, having nothing to do with guns.

The previous data you gave tries to make the opposite point by including immigrants that aren't from third world countries, I.e. irrelevant. You for sure see how that's bad faith and I'm not going to entertain further discussion if you won't sustain that you're in the wrong for doing that.

You've also summarized the data with an interpretation that isn't honest to the numbers.

That last part absolutely ends the discussion for me. I'm interested in science not politics.

	▲	selcuka a day ago \| parent [-]
		You are clearly reading the data incorrectly. It says that immigration (third world or not) reduces the crime and murder rate. U.S.-born citizens are more prone to incarceration.