|
|
|
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
(Bob Summers) wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:24:20 GMT, Bert wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:08:45 GMT, Bert wrote:
Gunner wrote:
Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1
snip
Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.
snip
In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.
If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?
Good question. Email the author and ask him. Then report back to us.
Nah. I think since you're the one who spewed this inconsistent prose
into the newsgroup, you should report back to us.
3 x 1.1 = ~3.2 looks like a consistent statement to me at 2 digit precision.
True but irrelevant. Let me spell it out for you. The inconsistency is
due to Gunner claiming in one paragraph that "In Japan, the United
Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000," while in
another paragraph he claims that "the murder rate in Japan, with
weapons other than firearms, is 3.2 per hundred thousand." If it's 3.2
with weapons other than firearms, it can't very well be 1.1 in total,
can it? Maybe Gunner wrote in error in one place or the other, or
maybe he correctly quoted inconsistent sources, but he's not admitting
to either. In any case, the net result is that what he wrote was
inconsistent.
Bert
|