Talk:Bowling for Columbine/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Summary of Issues with Moore's Statistical Methods

We'll never get anywhere bandying POV around; it's arguable whether we'll get anywhere anyhow. But there are legitimate criticisms of Moore's statistical method, which probably ought to be mentioned in the context of this article. These errors do not prove that his conclusions are false; discussing the truth or falsehood of his conclusions is completely outside the scope of this article. The problems with his analysis include:

  1. Moore use raw number of deaths. This automatically exaggerates the death rate in populous countries.
  2. Moore used only gun-related deaths. This ignores homicides committed with other weapons, and exaggerates countries where a greater proportion of homicides are committed using firearms.
  3. Moore used only gun-related deaths. This ignores aggravated assault, robbery, rape and other crimes, which can also be considered "violent". If one country has more homicide, and another has more rape and assault, it is a difficult philosophical question which country is "more violent".
  4. Moore considered only "Western" nations. The nations chosen are those generally considered "advanced" nations, though no definite criterion is offered. For example, Brazil is in the western hemisphere, but was not included. Russia was not included, though it is an industrialized nation (but not "western"). The problem with this is that Moore was preselecting his sample, but did not offer any argument why that sample was chosen appropriately.

The last point is subtle, because people automatically assume that the US can fairly be compared with Japan and England, but cannot fairly be compared with Brazil or Mexico. For example, some have argued that "poor" nations are automaticlaly more violent, and therefore should be excluded--but this cannot be assumed; it must be proven. Otherwise, the danger is very real that nations are being selected partly on the level of violence they experience. This issue must be resolved before any statistical analysis of a partial list of nations can be meaningful.

Okay, I agree that trading insults gets us nowhere. So here is an attempt at expressing where I disagree with what you are saying, without getting personal. The basic problem, as I see it, is that this is a critique of a phantom. Moore was not, as I have tried to point out, offering a statistical "argument" regarding gun deaths to "prove" anything. You are assuming something that, in my view, is not the case. The film is an artistic exploration into the "why"s of violence in the United States. The film is NOT some sort of extended proof that the US is more violent than the rest of the world, it offers no argument to support such a contention, because that is not its purpose. To focus on what was about 1 minute out of the entire movie and give it exaggerated focus and importance is to miss the point entirely. The movie is not about those statistics that you are concerned with. It is about the human side of violence and it asks why this happens. It doesn't even try to offer any definitive answers to the questions it asks. soulpatch
Put thus, you could be right. I do think it's appropriate to point out within this article that critics question whether the United States is in fact the "most violent nation" in the first place, and possibly a remark that the death-counts he presents in the movie do not, by themselves, prove that it is (together with suitable NPOV verbiage, etc.).
Beyond that, it happens to be true that his presentation of those counts was intended to convey to the readers what a violent place the US is; it would be of some worth to point out the issues raised above in some suitable context. What context? I dunno: deceptiveness of statistics? Problems in experimental design? Where? I don't know offhand of other places where similar misleading statistics are mentioned in the Wikipedia, but they are probably all over the place...so perhaps a common article, linked from several such places? Help me out here. --Len.
Why not start a new article? You feel strongly about this, and probably have a lot of value to contribute to such an article. I think that some of your critique of the statistics that were presented in the movie raise valid issues. Maybe you could do a search first to see if any existing article covers the topic. While I don't like the idea of overemphasizing the statistical aspect of this movie, I don't object to bringing it up in the article either, but a more detailed discussion surely belongs somewhere. In any case, you have expertise to bring to the subject of statistics, so why not go for it in a new article? soulpatch
Oh, thanks a LOT--put it on ME to find a home for this. :-)
Pax, and really, just a quick search on "statistics" or something would probably tell you if there already is such an article. If not, just start your own! The worst that can happen is that someone notices an article that covers the topic and then they will merge your article with that one. It's a collaborative project, after all! soulpatch

Worse, the problem cannot be resolved simply by considering all nations. Some nations are in a state of civil war. Do war casualties count as crimes? Presumably not, if one is interested in crime; quite possibly, if one is interested in all forms of violence. Other nations are troubled with terrorism--should deaths by terrorism be included? They are generally not in Israel, but they generally are in Northern Ireland. It is certainly arguable whether they count as crime, though they obviously do count as violence.

The issue of possible deterrence effects of firearms ownership are completely outside the scope of this discussion.

Had Moore corrected for population, though, his statistical argument would still represent a flawed analysis. It is also necessary to account for the larger number of guns, and/or gun owners, in the various countries. The statistic which would provide for the most meaningful comparison is homicides by firearm per 100,000 guns per 100,000 people.

This is a ludicrous argument. It is an impossible comparison to make, because there probably fewer than 10,000 legally held guns in the UK. Mintguy 12:48 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mintguy.
Statistics based on population, without any accounting for relative availability of guns, are essentially meaningless. To your couter-assertion, that the comparison would be impossible if we tried to account for gun availability, the answer is "Tough cookies". If it is impossible to estimate the availability of guns (both legal and illegal), then NO meaningful comparison is possible between the US and the UK. Substituting a meaningless statistic, for a potentially meaningful one for which information is not available, is cargo-cult science. (I used numbers, just like a real scientist--so why don't the meaningful conclusions start coming?) --Len.
The assertion is that you are dramatically more likely to be killed by a gun in the US than anywhere else, and this is clearly the case however you present it. Mintguy 23:31 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
Possibly so--but it would be WILDLY false to say "you are dramatically more likely to be murdered in the United States than anywhere else". Are you somehow suggesting that it's more pleasant to be killed with a machete than with a gun? The relevance to this article: Moore in fact begs the question whether the US is a more violent place.


I removed the following statement because it has absolutely nothing to do with the movie.

"Moore also did not address the claim that countries with stricter gun control might experience fewer "gun deaths", but more violent crime overall. Some researchers claim that violent crime in the UK is now higher than in the United States, and that a person is more likely to be assaulted or robbed in London, England than in New York, New York. Opponents of gun control argue that higher overall death rates, by weapons other than guns, result because guns are also less likely to be used defensively in countries where they are banned. Moore made no attempt to address or refute such claims."

Whoever wrote this must not have bothered to see the film, since Moore specifically stated that the amount of guns in a country does not have anything to do with gun deaths. In fact, he not only stated it, it was actually the key point behind the questions that he asked throughout the movie. I also corrected another statement in this article that seemed to suggest that Moore thought that countries with gun control necessarily have fewer murders. --soulpatch

Moore characterized the relative violence of various countries by comparing gun-related statistics only. In other words, if next year England had ZERO gun homicides, but 33% of the population died by bludgeoning, then according to Moore the US would be the more violent country. --Len.
Regardless, the fact is that Moore specifically did not say that the amount of guns in a country have anything to do with its murder rate, nor did it claim that gun control would make a country less violent. The paragraph I excised suggested otherwise. soulpatch
But he did ask "Why is America more violent than other countries?" This begs the question WHETHER America is more violent than other countries. He then equates "gun violence" with "violence", and uses some invalid statistics to "substantiate his claim".
I'm not going to argue with you over whether the US's abnormally high murder rate doesn't make it a more violent country. My concern is over the inaccurate statements that were made in this article about what Moore said in the movie. soulpatch
"Abnormally high murder rate"? That is itself highly questionable. But you seem opposed to any discussion of the statistical issues which illuminate whether or not it is legitimate to refer to "the abnormally high murder rate" in the first place. --Len.
No, what I object to is an attempt at turning this article into a discussion of issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the movie that it purportedly discusses. If you think the murder rate in the United States is not higher than it is in other countries, you are welcome to your opinion, bizarre thought it might be. That is neither here nor there. The problem I have is with attributing claims to Michael Moore that he never made, not to mention missing the forest for the trees. Moore never claimed that gun ownership was correlated with the murder rate in the United States. Trying to turn this article into polemic against claims that Moore never made is both POV and, to say the least, silly and illogical. soulpatch
You are again equating "murder rate" with "gun murder rate". This puts you in the ridiculous position of suggesting that Rwanda is a safer place than the US. But that's beside the point: the point is that you have completely misunderstood the nature of the statistical statement here. Moore claims that the US is more violent than other countries, and pretends to substantiate it--by COUNTING "gun deaths", but IGNORING levels of gun ownership! When one recalls that the US has >100,000,000 gun owners, while Britain has <10,000 gun owners, one observes that "more violent" is a highly debatable characterization. I'm afraid there is no room for debate on the point that his statistical "analysis" is deeply flawed. You have rejected my observations (which could use some cleanup, I'd admit) because you are convinced they are POV special-pleading. But that conviction proceeds from the fact that your own POV is so entrenched, that you can't seem to recognize a valid criticism of his method when presented with it.
Put differently, what are your credentials for pronouncing my criticism of his statistical method incorrect? I am not a statistician--I am only a PhD mathematician with enough knowledge of statistics to spot the very elementary flaw in his reasoning. --Len.
I am still curious if you actually saw the movie. Thusfar you haven't said if you did or not. The problem, which I keep repeating over and over again, but which thusfar you haven't addressed, is that all of this is irrelevant to the points that Moore was making in the movie. You are worrying about the forest when you shoulud be looking at the trees. Moore was not comparing the United States to Rwanda, but to other advanced industrialized nations. And, this is important: he was not arguing that the presence of guns correlate to murder rates. On the contrary, he was arguing the exact opposite! So you are focusing on a straw man. If you think that the murder rate in the United States is not higher than it is in the other industrialized countries like Japan, Canada, and the UK, then it is really hard to take you too seriously, but at the very least you should make some attempt to address what the thrust of Moore's film was about rather than arguing against things he never said. soulpatch
Some have criticized Moore for staging scenes to score rhetorical points. In one scene Moore opened an account at a bank, and walked out the door with a pistol in his hand. Guns were given as an incentive to new depositors. However, the bank has stated that it does not keep or directly give out handguns to new depositors; instead it gives the depositor a voucher, which may be redeemed at designated gun stores, upon successful completion of the mandatory FBI background check and after any applicable waiting periods.

Removed. This cannot be included without at least providing, in the body of the article, the name of the bank, a link to the bank's website, and a credible reference for this information on how the bank operates. Also, is the possibility that the bank did operate as depicted in the Moore film while Moore was filming? --Ryguasu

Now you're being ridiculous. It is just plain illegal to hand out guns over a bank counter, for one thing. There is no possibility that it operated that way. You are violating the recommended practice for Wikipedia of not reducing the information content of an article; it is legitimate to ask for further details, or to supply them yourself, but it is not legitimate to delete the paragraph. Your POV is showing. --Len.
I saw Moore address this point on a talk show. He said the bank did a five-minuted "background check" then handed him a voucher. -- Zoe
Zoe, that may be true--but it is worth observing that any "background check" performed by the bank is most likely an attempt to avoid bad publicity like "Bank Gives Gun Voucher to Serial Killer". Another background check must by law be performed by the gun store redeeming the voucher, and that is the one that counts for legal purposes. And Moore did not film himself walking out of the bank with a voucher; he filmed himself walking out of the bank with a pistol. --Len.

Removed the following paragraph:

Had Moore corrected for population, though, his statistical argument would still represent a flawed analysis: it fails to take into account the number of guns present in the society. It is also necessary to account for the relative number of guns, and/or gun owners, in the various countries. For example, consider two hypothetical towns, each with a population of 100,000. Suppose further that in a given year, one town experiences 100 firearm-related deaths, and the other experiences 20. By Moore's reasoning, the first town would appear to be "5 times more violent" than the second town. But suppose further that the first town had 10,000 gun owners, and the second town had 100 gun owners. It turns out that a gun is actually 20 times more likely to be involved in a lethal incident in the second town. Calculating gun deaths per population, without any accounting at all for relative availability of firearms, produces essentially meaningless statistics.

Once again, the above paragraph clearly shows that the person who wrote it didn't bother to see the movie or paid no attention to what Moore was saying in the movie. soulpatch

Clarify. Moore argued that the US has more "violence", specifically more "gun violence", using invalid statistical method. Your POV is showing. --Len.
You seem to be so focused on using this article as a forum for your own anti-gun-control views that you don't seem to know that Moore was not arguing that the number of guns in a country correlate to the number of gun deaths in that same country. Do you or do you not understand that Moore was not arguing this point? Did you see the movie? soulpatch

It seems people are getting a bit too ambitious about the scope of this article. Might it not make more sense to move the the bulk of the discussion of violence to another article, say to gun politics? --Ryguasu

No objection here. --Len.

Here are the Michael Moore figures and the CIA stats, if you want to try to work them into the aritcle.

Michael Moore's stats: 
Germany, 381 gun murders. 
France, 255 gun murders. 
Canada, 165 gun murders. 
UK, 68 gun murders. 
Australia, 65 gun murders. 
Japan, 39 gun murders. 
U.S., 11,127 gun murders.

CIA World Factbook 2002 population stats:

Germany, 83,251,851 
France, 59,765,983 
Canada, 31,902,268 
U.K., 59,778,002 
Australia, 19,546,792 
Japan, 126,974,628 
U.S., 280,562,489
Mintguy 23:25 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

Currently, this article contains one paragraph that summarizes the movie, and two paragraphs that contain a pro-gun critique of a minor point within the the movie that is irrelevant to the essence of the film. This article is not NPOV, and needs some major revision. soulpatch

Soulpatch: do you know what NPOV means? The flaws in his statistical "analysis" are (1) relevant, (2) neither "pro-gun" nor "anti-gun", and (3) as stated, were NPOV. Your insertion badly violated NPOV because you (1) introduced a new argument foreign to Moore's own, and (2) made unsupported assertions of fact concerning murder rates in various countries. I intended to allow your highly POV pleading, but discuss the subject on talk...but you went from bad to worse, deleted the purely theoretical discussion of his statistical methods, and then worked your unsupported "facts" deeper into the article. If you can't tell NPOV from blatant pleading on the gun issue, then prepare for an edit war. --Len.
In case you aren't perfectly clear on this, Soulpatch, let me reiterate:
  1. The flaws in his statistical method are on subject.
  2. Pointing out that those flaws have been observed is NPOV.
  3. In my discussion of his statistical errors, I made no claims whether a proper method would have supported or overturned his position.
  4. In other words, I pointed out the flaws in his "statistics", but did not offer an alternative conclusions.
You, on the other hand:
  1. dismissed several of the observed flaws in his method,
  2. yet claimed that the observations had no merit.
  3. Further, you offered completely unsubstantiated "facts" to back up your assertion. (Hint: If aggravated assault is included, your "facts" are blatantly false. If homicides only are considered, then your characterization of US homicide rates as "much higher" is also false.)
  4. In addition, you offered the blatantly POV conclusion that Moore's conclusion is obviously true, even if the reasoning he offered was deeply flawed.
In sum, my observations were (1) correct, (2) relevant, (3) NPOV, and (4) DID NOT advance either a pro- or anti-gun position. Your reply was out-and-out POV pleading. So I repeat: learn what NPOV means, or prepare for an edit war. --Len

First of all, it is hard to take you even remotely seriously when you deny that the US has a higher homicide rate than the other industrialized nations of the world.

Fine--provide the statistics. You've said that a number of times now, without offering the proof. What's wrong with you? --Len.
I see that someone has already provided statistics, but I will give you a little homework assignment. Go into Google and look up the number of homicides in Los Angeles in 2001, and then go look up the number of homicides in all of Canada in 2001. Now tell us which had more homicides--the city of Los Angeles, or Canada. For extra credit, tell us the respective populations of Cananda and Los Angeles. Then, after you have done that, tell us which country has the greater homicide rate.soulpatch
Soulpatch: Learn to read. (1) I have never denied that homicide rates are higher in the United States; I have only observed that Moore's analysis was not valid. See my other comments on this page. (Hint: "history" is your friend.) Your patronizing attitude doesn't affect me in the least, by the way--though it speaks volumes about your ability to discuss this objectively. --Len.
That's funny, because it was you who said "provide the statistics", when I pointed out that the United States had a higher homicide rate.
[Of course I said "provide the statistics", you goober! Is this the book of Soulpatch's unsupported statements, or is it intended to be an encyclopedia containing actual facts?]
So you asked me to provide statistics to prove something that you already knew to be the case? Is the intended to be the book of Len's pointless rhetorical questions, or are we actually going to work to build an actual encyclopedia.? soulpatch
[Of course! What in blazes is wrong with you? The point is not what somebody knows, thinks, believes, etc; the point is to put accurate, substantiated information into the Wikipedia. What part of this is news to you? Note that you have not shown any comprehension of the fact that "highest homicide rate in the industrialized world" DOES NOT EQUAL "most violent nation in the world", and arguably does not equal "most violent nation in the industrialized world". You are letting your POV make you extremely S L O P P Y! You seem not to realize that things need to be substantiated, and that specific information is better than vague generalizations.]
Bullshit. It is not necessary for participants here to provide statistics to support every single statement that is ever made here. That is just utter nonsense. If you wish to challenge or if you question a claim that is made, then go ahead and ask for the statistics. To request support or proof for something you know to be the case simply bogs down the talk page into pointlessness. But surely you know this. I don't see you going through every single article questioning every single fact that is ever posted, and to question facts that you know to be the case shows a lack of interest in seriously participating in this project. soulpatch
[I also notice that you haven't touched the question: Why are we justified in considering only the "industrialized world"? I don't blame you! In your shoes, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole: there ISN'T any justification which isn't racist. --Len]
Actually, I did address your ridiculous question with a rhetorical question of my own. If you don't understand the sociological value in comparing similar cultures with shared economies, cultural histories, or other similarities, then I am certainly not the one to educate you. Your definition of racism is so bizarre as to be laughable. Somehow it is racist to put the United States and Japan in the same category? Go back and learn the meaning of racism. You are simply resorting to meaningless trolls that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is this movie. So, when do you plan on seeing it? soulpatch
It is you who claimed that it was "questionable" that the United States has a much higher murder rate. But whatever. At least now you concede that the US is a more violent society. That's some progress. soulpatch
["More violent society"? I've been wasting my breath, obviously, since you AGAIN take "higher homicide rate" and conclude "more violent society"! You are making two mistakes: first, you are ignoring all forms of violence other than homicide; second, you are making the purely arbitrary (and racist) distinction between the "industrialized world" and the rest of the world--"savages" or whatever it is you think they are. --Len]
^ Terrible trolling statement Mintguy 17:09 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)
^ Pure ad hominem. The decision to include only the "industrialized world" is arbitrary, and never defended. If we include all nations, then the US does not have the highest homicide rate, and in general the statistics don't nearly support Moore as well as they appear to. But why do we restrict our attention to the "industrialized world"? Answer: the unspoken assumption that while third-world nations have more violence, this is somehow to be expected; that "industrialized" nations can be expected to uphold a higher standard of conduct. In short, that the rest of the world is inferior to the "industrialized world". To see that I am correct, and not trolling, simply attempt to formulate a justification for comparing the US with Japan and the UK, but not Mexico, Brazil or Rwanda. PLEASE! I urge you to make the attempt, and consider the implications of what you discover in doing so. --Len
You've quite simply gone off the deep end. Mintguy is right. You are just trolling now, fishing for whatever personal attacks you think you can come up with. (If you don't understand that there are factors like--oh, gee, I don't know, maybe poverty and stages of economic development and cultural factors that influence what happens in a society, then you have much to learn about sociology. But really, what does this have to do with this movie that you haven't seen but feel qualified to comment on anyway?) Here's my suggestions: if you want to seriously discuss this movie, why not go to the nearest theatre that is showing it, then come back and participate in the article in a serious and constructive way. soulpatch
Whoops--I didn't notice this before. If you think "oh, gee, POVERTY" explains a difference in levels of violence, then of course you realize that this must be proven, and does not go without saying. Don't you? Don't you? Sigh. Well, fear not: it appears that you're quite safe from logic and reality, since your unsubstantiated assumptions are apparently protected, onion like, by layers and layers of unsubstantiated assumptions. --Len
And your comments have to do with "Bowling for Columbine" exactly how? So tell us--when do you plan on seeing the movie? User:soulpatch
Note: I let you put me in a false position. I never denied that the US has a higher homicide rate than other industrialized nations. I have pointed out flaws in his analysis, without asserting that a valid analysis would overturn his premise. And I never asserted it for a very simple reason!
Nor have I made any observation of the bigotry implicit in his decision to consider only industrialized nations--what makes Rwandans so beneath comparison? Is he calling them "savages"? "Monkeys"? Why does it go without saying that they should be more violent than "civilized" persons, and hence ought to be excluded from his consideration? (What a fascinating echo of British colonialist mercantilism!) There are many interesting questions, all quite beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that I have made no attempt to advance a "pro-gun" agenda in the context of this article. I am in fact a Bible believer and a conscientious objector. My interest is that facts be truthful, arguments rational, and writing NPOV. --Len

Second, since you have not denied not seeing the movie, you are not even qualified to discuss the film. Perhaps there are other feature length documentaries that you haven't seen that you would also like to work on in this encyclopedia?

Special pleading. The statistical argument in the article can be evaluated by anybody who knows what they're talking about.
There is no "statistical argument" in the movie. This is an example of what happens when a person who is ignorant of a movie tries to comment on it, and it further illustrates that you are unqualified to participate in this article. The film is not concerned with making an extended proof of the higher homicide rate in the United States; it is an extended inquiry into why the violence exists. If you had seen the movie that you somehow feel that you are an expert on despite not having seen it, then you would know this. Perhaps while you are at it, you can participate in the article on "chutzpuh", since the claim that you can write about a movie you don't know anything about is truly a fine example of this. soulpatch

Third, I simply reduced your long tirade about a minor and insignificant aspect of the major thrust of his film from two thirds of the article to a single sentence. This is an attempt at restoring balance to the article. If you don't understand why a one paragraph summary of the film, followed by a two-paragraph tirade that complains about a nit that is not germane to the thrust of the film, is not NPOV, then it is you, not me, who has a lot to learn about NPOV. soulpatch

The relative length of the summary and the discussion has nothing to do with NPOV. You apparently do have a problem here.
Soulpatch, while I sympathize with your arguments -- many attacks against the film are clearly unfounded -- it is not correct for us to ignore the controversy or to merely link to it. Instead of deleting the pertinent information, the right course of action is to
  • provide attribution to arguments against the film, or ask for it where it is not available
  • summarize Moore's counter-arguments.
This could be done in a separate controversy article.
Then start a well-writen one; I'll contribute.
Len, threatening to start an edit war is hardly helpful. Let's try to build a balanced article together.--Eloquence
I'm willing. Stop making up statistics (without even giving numbers--even made up ones), and stop treating a scientific assessment of his method as POV, and we'll be off to a start.
Now go do the same thing in the George W. Bush article.
I haven't seen it. If it says he has a low IQ, in the absence of an IQ test (and given that GWB graduated school, while Al Gore dropped out), then I wouldn't be the least surprised. Some people apparently can't tell facts from opinion, let alone distinguish NPOV from POV statements OF those opinions. --Len.

Len. Here are some authenticated stats for you. From a report by Professor Martin Killias of the University of Lausanne in Switzerland in the early 1990s (Killias, 1993)

Table A.2: Rates of homicide, suicide and gun ownership in 18 countries

Rate per Million % Households
With Guns
Homicide Suicide
Overall With Gun Overall With Gun
USA 75.9 44.6 124.0 72.8 48.0
Norway 12.1 3.6 142.7 38.7 32.0
Canada 26.0 8.4 139.4 44.4 29.1
Switzerland 11.7 4.6 244.5 57.4 27.2
Finland 29.6 7.4 253.5 54.3 23.2
France 12.5 5.5 223.0 49.3 22.6
New Zealand 20.2 4.7 137.7 24.1 22.3
Australia 19.5 6.6 115.8 43.2 19.4
Belgium 18.5 8.7 231.5 24.5 16.6
Italy 17.4 13.1 78.1 10.9 16.0
Sweden 13.3 2.0 182.4 21.2 15.1
Spain 13.7 3.8 64.5 4.5 13.1
W. Germany 12.1 2.0 203.7 13.8 8.9
N. Ireland 43.3 21.3 82.7 11.8 8.4
CSSR 13.5 2.6 117.8 9.5 5.2
Scotland 16.3 1.1 105.1 6.9 4.7
England & Wales 6.7 0.8 86.1 3.8 4.7
Netherlands 11.8 2.7 117.2 2.8 1.9
  1. The Swiss gun ownership figure excluding military guns is 12.2%
  2. From Killias (1993).

Taken from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap41.htm a UK Parliamentary report into gun control following the Dunblane massacre. Mintguy

What is interesting to note is that the overall Homicide rate for the USA is nearly double that of Northern Ireland and this was at the height of the "The Troubles". Mintguy
The only problem with the above numbers is that they are more than 15 years old. Killias used statistics from the mid-late 1980s. The rate of homicide in the US has been falling steadily since the early 1990s, and rates in countries like England has been rising. In 1999, for example, the number of homicides per million in population was about 63, about 20% less than circa 1985. Current statistics will still show the US with higher homicide rates than Japan, England, etc.--though much less dramatic than the numbers offered by Moore--but the most current information should be used. The rate in England for 1999/2000 per million in population is 13.8; For Canada it was 18; France and Australia have similar rates. (Each country will have to be looked up individually, since comparison tables do not appear to be extant. I'm out of time.) --Len.
Actually, the homicide rate in the US has been rising in the last few years again. The UN democragphic data that has been published over the years has consistently shown the US homicide rates to fluctuate between about 7.5 and 10 per 100,000, in comparison with about 1.0-2.0 for most industrialized democracies. Finland is typically the highest in western Europe, with something like 3. The US consistently has the highest homicide rates throughout the western world.soulpatch
Tangential note: in Canada, 2/3 of homicides were committed by people with prior criminal records. Moore didn't even consider looking at the justice system for correlations with crime rates--but such observations are outside the scope of the article: there are infinitely many things Moore didn't consider; the subject is his affirmative arguments. --Len.
Then again, none of that is relevant, since a dead person is a dead person regardless of whether the person who did the killing has a criminal record. Maybe if you bothered to see the movie that you claim to be an expert on, you might have a better understanding of what these supposed "arguments" are. soulpatch

see GunOwnership.png based on the table above - the US still stands out very clearly, without having to do a Xi squared test or any other form of statistical analysis. OK - it doesn't say anything about causes - the UK has had Hungerford and Dunblane, and Australia has also had similar incidents, but the fact is that most people in these countries are not particularly worried about being shot at, because it's quite hard with the lack of guns. Thank goodness! David Martland 12:24 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)