It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by AtticusRye
Exactly. Look at the first two colums, total rampage shooting fatalities and population. Then, for grins, check out the homicides per 100,000 column.
Originally posted by AtticusRye
reply to post by redrose123
Good points ... another thing I notice is that 7 of the top 10 countries have more psychiatrists than average. I wish they had a column that showed % of population on psyhoactive medication, but this may say almost as much.
Originally posted by undo
Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by AtticusRye
Exactly. Look at the first two colums, total rampage shooting fatalities and population. Then, for grins, check out the homicides per 100,000 column.
holy toledo, mexico has 3 times as many murders than the rest of the nations on the list.
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Austria is 2,500,000
The rate of private gun ownership in Austria is 30.4 firearms per 100 people
In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Austria ranked at No. 31
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, Austria ranked at No. 14
----------------------
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Finland is 2,400,000
The rate of private gun ownership in Finland is 45.7 firearms per 100 people
In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Finland ranked at No. 33
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, Finland ranked at No. 4
Originally posted by AtticusRye
Originally posted by undo
Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by AtticusRye
Exactly. Look at the first two colums, total rampage shooting fatalities and population. Then, for grins, check out the homicides per 100,000 column.
holy toledo, mexico has 3 times as many murders than the rest of the nations on the list.
But Mexico also has less than 250 violent assaults per 100,000 (as with the US and Canada) ... while the UK has more than 700 violent assaults per 100,000.
So the question to you ATSers ... would you rather live in:
(a) a place where you had a 1-in-6,000 chance of being murdered in the next year and a 1-in-500 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag, or, (Mexico)
(b) a place where you had a 1-in-80,000 chance of being murdered in the next year BUT a 1-in-150 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag (UK)
???
I don't think there's a right/wrong answer. Probably just personal preference.edit on 2-1-2013 by AtticusRye because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GAOTU789
Those stats are misleading and the title of your thread is off.
Originally posted by foodstamp
Originally posted by AtticusRye
Originally posted by undo
Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by AtticusRye
Exactly. Look at the first two colums, total rampage shooting fatalities and population. Then, for grins, check out the homicides per 100,000 column.
holy toledo, mexico has 3 times as many murders than the rest of the nations on the list.
But Mexico also has less than 250 violent assaults per 100,000 (as with the US and Canada) ... while the UK has more than 700 violent assaults per 100,000.
So the question to you ATSers ... would you rather live in:
(a) a place where you had a 1-in-6,000 chance of being murdered in the next year and a 1-in-500 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag, or, (Mexico)
(b) a place where you had a 1-in-80,000 chance of being murdered in the next year BUT a 1-in-150 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag (UK)
???
I don't think there's a right/wrong answer. Probably just personal preference.edit on 2-1-2013 by AtticusRye because: (no reason given)
Question, In either country can I get these colostemy bags in different colors to match my shirt? If so, then I choose that one..
Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
"per capita" stats are kind of weird...
see... when a country like finland has 5,000,000 people, 2 mass shootings is actually more than a country that has 10 mass shootings BUT it has 300.000.000 people.
It doesnt really make finland worse that THAT country with 300.000.000 ppl... is that those 10 mass shootings that actually killed more, were diluted in the total population. Still like I said, it doesnt make it worse.
If you fart in a restaurant with 2 people... they all hear it, give you the looks and you never go back to that restaurant again. If you do it at walmart on a black friday, who cares? You're only one fart in 200. [/quote
Yes, but if you fart in America (fart/mass shootings) the media magnifies it by 500%, so in effect, it cancels the effect
Originally posted by AtticusRye
If the stats are misleading the onus is yours to demonstrate how, not to just scream "MISLEADING!" and storm off.
it has had three, according to the website you linked, in 5 years with a recorded 19 fatalities.
"Norway leads the 34 most industrialized nations in mass shooting fatalities."
That would be a correct title, because, it is: (a) Norway, (b) the OECD nations, not the world, (c) fatalities, not just mass shootings.
Fatalities...
USA 186
Norway 77
Germany 25
Finland 19
it's spelled "colostomy", Yank
(and English isn't even my native language )
Let me know if you need additional help with maths, grammar or any other subjects. The world is here to help.edit on 2-1-2013 by AtticusRye because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GAOTU789
Originally posted by AtticusRye
If the stats are misleading the onus is yours to demonstrate how, not to just scream "MISLEADING!" and storm off.
I did...
it has had three, according to the website you linked, in 5 years with a recorded 19 fatalities.
You made the outlandish claim, the onus is on you to prove it.
And...
"Norway leads the 34 most industrialized nations in mass shooting fatalities."
That would be a correct title, because, it is: (a) Norway, (b) the OECD nations, not the world, (c) fatalities, not just mass shootings.
Is wrong as well. According to your link again...
Fatalities...
USA 186
Norway 77
Germany 25
Finland 19
That offer of help extends to you as well. Reading comprehension isn't easy, I understand.
edit on 2-1-2013 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by foodstamp
I'll help you too since you were so kind to help me with my spelling.. You can't help me with 'maths' but you could help me with my 'math'. There see!? Now we're both stupid!
In the tabled data you aggregate fatalities over 5 years and then present them “per 1,000,000.” This seems very clumsy.
It is clumsy, but is presented in this format for easier comprehension. Fatal rampage shootings are such rare events that reordering the table on a yearly basis would result in wild swings in national rankings, making international comparisons meaningless. Instead, the RSI looks at the most recent five year period. Fatalities are credited “per 1,000,000″ to minimize the number of decimal spots needed in the presentation of national totals.
Originally posted by GAOTU789
reply to post by AtticusRye
So you won't bother to atcually debtae the subject but instead make backhand insulkts insteaed.
Here's a little tip for you, when you use a source and make outrageous claims, you should take just a little time to read the website further past the one page you read.
Again, your source to dispute your silly claims of basic maths[sic]...
In the tabled data you aggregate fatalities over 5 years and then present them “per 1,000,000.” This seems very clumsy.
It is clumsy, but is presented in this format for easier comprehension. Fatal rampage shootings are such rare events that reordering the table on a yearly basis would result in wild swings in national rankings, making international comparisons meaningless. Instead, the RSI looks at the most recent five year period. Fatalities are credited “per 1,000,000″ to minimize the number of decimal spots needed in the presentation of national totals.
I suppose that easier comprehension was aimed at folks like yourself.
Here's a little better representation based on the commonly accepted per capita number of per 100,000
Finland 2.84
USA 16.94
Based on the figures given by your website for fatalities and population numbers.
So what was that you were saying about basic maths?
Anyway, nice talking to ya and thanks for the well wishes.