Originally posted by shavixmirThanks for the gun stats.
Let's see...
2004: 29569 gun related deaths in the US.
That's about 81 a day...
GUN RELATED DEATHS... never mind stabbings, muggings, whatever else...
So no. It would seem that Venezuela is better off without the US invading.
Back in the 1990's gun related deaths in the US were around 42k.
Looks like we're cutting it down.
Of course those stats include gang and drug dealer shootings, police shooting criminals, and self inflicted shootings.
Thanks for the good news.
Granny.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou're going back farther than this article is. It's abviously using only the more recent, lower numbers for a reason.
If there were ~12,000 murders in Venezuela, then it's half as dangerous than Iraq. There were 25,000 civilian deaths there in 2007.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2007/
Originally posted by uzlessI did read your rebuke. You didn't take it as it is. You simply inssisted on changing the time frame and calling lower deaths meaningless.
I'd like to see you read my debunk listed a few posts above and then tell us why you still agree with most of the article.
I won't rebuke or citicize you...just be interested to see what your thoughts are.
Whoa! He's finally doing something that makes sense!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517311453&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is putting the brakes on his drive for revolutionary change in Venezuela, shifting away from radical socialist reforms in favor of a pragmatic focus on everyday problems from soaring crime to trash-strewn streets.
Originally posted by MerkThat's just gun related deaths, like I said.
Considering that Venezeulas population is about 5% of Americas, you might want to consider doing some math.
Take in the whole picture, considering where Venezuela's coming from...
No. They would not be better having the hounds of hell or America invade it.
Originally posted by MerkThe article says this:
You're going back farther than this article is. It's abviously using only the more recent, lower numbers for a reason.
With even Venezuelan officials admitting their country clocked 12,249 murders in 2007
I don't understand what you mean. The article gives deaths for the year 2007.
It's using the more recent, lower numbers because it makes Venezuela look bad.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Jamaica has more murders per head of the population than Venezuela.
The US has the highest murder rate in the Western world.
http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php
"The rape rate in the US in 1998 was 34.4 per 100,000 persons. In 1997 there was a decrease of 7% in the overall crime rate, but the rate of rape and sexual assault did not decline at all. (National Crime Victimization Survey, 1997)"
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/samerica/venezuela.html
The crime rate in Venezuela is very high in regard to murder, but low to medium in regard to other crimes. An analysis was done using INTERPOL data for Venezuela. For purpose of comparison, data were drawn for the seven offenses used to compute the United States FBI's index of crime. Index offenses include murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. The combined total of these offenses constitutes the Index used for trend calculation purposes. Venezuela will be compared with Japan (country with a low crime rate) and USA (country with a high crime rate). According to the INTERPOL data, for murder, the rate in 2000 was 33.2 per 100,000 population for Venezuela, 1.10 for Japan, and 5.51 for USA. For rape, the rate in 2000 was 12.13 for Venezuela, compared with 1.78 for Japan and 32.05 for USA
So, in other words, even though the murder rate is higher per head of the population in Venezuela, the rape rate in the US is 3x higher.
For aggravated assault, the rate in 2000 was 105.32 for Venezuela, 23.78 for Japan, and 323.62 for USA.
and
The rate of larceny for 2000 was 6.73 for Venezuela, 1401.26 for Japan, and 2475.27 for USA.
So, not only more chance of being raped in the US, but a higher chance of being assaulted as well!
---------
So Merk, do you really think Venezuela should be waiting for the US to march on in?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou're correct and you're wrong. All at the same time. That's not you're fault though. That's the articles fault. He lists the annual stats, yes, but the writer is not using that stat to make his case about Iraq being safer than Venezuela. The info he uses to make that case is recent month deaths.
The article says this:
[b]With even Venezuelan officials admitting their country clocked 12,249 murders in 2007
I don't understand what you mean. The article gives deaths for the year 2007.
It's using the more recent, lower numbers because it makes Venezuela look bad.[/b]
He tosses that annual stat in just to take a jab at Venezeula.
Originally posted by uzlessYes, I did get the point. You can't change the fact that Iraq, over the last several months, has become safer than Venezeula with both countries trends going in opposite directions, likely making the disparity worse as time goes on.
uh, didn't you get the point? You CAN"T take the article just as it is! The article is misleading and unbalanced.
And yes, I do understand that outside of this very breif timeframe, the comparison would be the complete opposite.
Originally posted by shavixmirNo, I don't. I don't think they should want anyone to make their country better except themselves and think the U.S. should let them rot in their own filth.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Jamaica has more murders per head of the population than Venezuela.
The US has the highest murder rate in the Western world.
http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php
[i]"The rape rate in the US in 1998 was 34.4 per 100,000 persons. In 1997 there was a decrease of 7% in the ov ...[text shortened]... ------
So Merk, do you really think Venezuela should be waiting for the US to march on in?
None of that changes the fact that violence is currently lower in a war zone.
Originally posted by MerkNo. Murder is lower in a war zone.
No, I don't. I don't think they should want anyone to make their country better except themselves and think the U.S. should let them rot in their own filth.
None of that changes the fact that violence is currently lower in a war zone.
Rape is higher in the US...
Originally posted by MerkOK. The flaw in your reasoning is cherry picking stats from a very short time period. Because you don't use a large body of statistics your conclusions are in great danger of being "informed" by a random spike (or negative spike) in the statistic in question.
You're correct and you're wrong. All at the same time. That's not you're fault though. That's the articles fault. He lists the annual stats, yes, but the writer is not using that stat to make his case about Iraq being safer than Venezuela. The info he uses to make that case is recent month deaths.
He tosses that annual stat in just to take a jab at Venezeula.
To get a proper idea of such things you need more data points then just one particular month's killings.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe reasoning is not mine, it's the authors.
OK. The flaw in your reasoning is cherry picking stats from a very short time period. Because you don't use a large body of statistics your conclusions are in great danger of being "informed" by a random spike (or negative spike) in the statistic in question.
To get a proper idea of such things you need more data points then just one particular month's killings.