Firearms, guns, rifles, projectile weapons

[dilbadoon]

Originally Posted by Aldaron

Easy. The ones with the lower violent crime rates. I doubt any of them will be identical.

I don't think "peaceful" is a loaded or subjective term at all. Saying "Australia is a peaceful nation, whereas Somalia isn't" is a statement that I would think the vast majority of people would understand without resorting to a dictionary. Just as if I said "Iceland is a cold country, whereas Australia isn't" would be understood by anyone as pretty-much true, despite the fact that there may be individual days where Reykjavík is warmer than Melbourne.

You want to toss out the word "peaceful" and not use it at all? Okay, find another one. "Peacable", maybe? *shrug*

Which violent crimes? As you highlighted our assault rates are up, our gun crimes are down.

I disagree it is not a subjective term, but as you have also highlighted, when used IN COMPARISON as per your examples it may be more appropriate. I was not responding to a "Australia is more peaceful than X" statement. Peaceful is still subject to an individuals definition. To say we are more peaceful than X does not make us the absolute as per the definition. I once again state I think it is a shitty word when trying to summarise something as complex as crime rates and violence in society.
Tell any victim of violent crime in Australia, not to worry, because we are a peaceful society. There is your loaded word.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread your example, saying "Australia is a peaceful nation whereas Somalia isn't" would be incorrect in my book. Yes, Somalia has much more violence than Australia, but how does that make Australia a peaceful nation, when comparing all the victims of violent crime in Australia to those that haven't been victims? It might sound nice, but to me it is not a factual or valuable statement. More accurate would be, "Somalia has a much higher rate of : rape/violence/murder etc. than Australia".

[dilbadoon]

Originally Posted by Xeno

I had almost completed an extensive reply to dilby when the fucking browser on my fucking iPad fucking well crashed fuck fuck fuck. I am fucking pissed off, hear?

Now to try again.

Your iPad must be on my side .

[Xeno]

Most of this post, while addressing individual points, is really about explaining a social-statistical mindset and how it is relevant to a wide range of measures.

Originally Posted by dilbadoon

How many rapes and murders per week do we accept when we decide that we are now a peaceful society? I am only covering this as Xeno asked me for my definition of a peaceful society.

This is the wrong question, in my view, because it retains the notion that there is some absolute standard, like saying about the same 110-limited road that 111 Km/h is incredibly dangerous and 109 Km/h perfectly safe. My definition already given does not depend on an absolute standard, nor should it if you compare other areas of morality.

Originally Posted by dilbadoon

My definition of the absolute was only because I think that is the only way it could be discussed between people. Otherwise, I have no idea how to describe to you my idea of a peaceful society.

Contrarily, I think that is the only way to shut down discussion, although I understand that your definition is precise and contains no logical fallacy. I do not mean that it contains no fallacy if we wish to have discourse about the subject.

Your example is a really good one, between you and your wife. Do we define a peaceful society as having no violence, or only when it is deserved. Is a verbal altercation between spouses violating the peace? Who decides when and where violence is allowed to keep us peaceful? etc. etc.

I thought is was a good question too . Let us assume that there were zero crimes against all current law. Firstly, present law is not what it used to be. Secondly, law can (and would promptly in that no-crime circumstance) be changed, so that society is no longer "peaceful". Peacefulness is relative, it is socially defined, whether you like it or not.

I just don't think it accurately describes a society in which there is plenty of violent crime.

Your definition of "plenty" is ineluctably based on "non-zero". It is only by comparing societies that we can decide at the present time under present laws and ethics what is "plenty".

In relation to this thread, gun crime still exists to (in my opinion) be reasonably prevalent, yes there are worse countries, and yes it is improving, however to my completely personal standards it is still too high.

Fine. I will always want all crime levels reduced as well.

No matter how I look at the wording or definitions, I can't see how Australia can be classed as a peaceful society, with assault, domestic violence, bullying, gun crime, rape etc. still well represented in the figures.
EDIT: The "in my opinion" after gun crime is referring to the fact that it would be fairly individual when gun crime is at an "acceptable" level.

I opened with discussion of absolute vs relative measures and proposed a measure in which Australia is a peaceful society. Life is less peaceful, more dangerous, in over 75% of countries, including the USA.

Originally Posted by dilbadoon

Exactly why I don't like to use the word "peaceful" Aldaron, because it really is so subjective. You could say "we are more peaceful than Iraq" well yes that is probably true, but what is that really telling us about anything?

I agree that saying we are more peaceful than Iraq tells us nothing very useful. Your question is like saying "Fred is taller than Bert so is that really telling us whether Fred is tall?" No, it does not tell us Fred is tall. We learn that by studying the normal distribution of height across the male population and from that we can reasonably say Fred is tall (or not) in comparison with the population. So it is with peacefulness, we must compare with the population of countries to make a statement about a country. Looking back also to my point about extant law, how tall would Fred have to be to be absolutely tall? He would have to be equal tallest of all, but might not someone grow taller?

My point was that the only definition that could be used for a meaningful discussion is the absolute.

And I have argued that such a definition is apparently true yet completely meaningless, because you can not define zero events except relative to law, which changes. Correspondingly we can not describe peacefulness of one country except in relation to other countries and to our present objectives.

However what about countries with similar crime rates to ours, how do we determine who is more peaceful?)

If they have similar crime rates and are otherwise similar on our index of peacefulness, then they have similar levels of peacefulness. What is the problem? If two people with remarkable tennis skills have similarly remarkable tennis skills then they both have remarkable tennis skills, and these skills are measurable to be rare against the population of tennis players. I see no difficulty there.

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by dilbadoon

Tell any victim of violent crime in Australia, not to worry, because we are a peaceful society. There is your loaded word.

and there, exactly, is taking your cues from individual events rather than from the pattern, the normal distribution of events.

It is, statistically, highly improbable you will be struck by lightning and even less probable you will be eaten by a shark. Tell that to relatives of someone killed by a shark, you may say. "So fucking what?" I say. It is still a fact that the death rate by population from shark attack is lower than that from lighting, and clearly a lot less likely than death in a car. These things are relative. To say that the only meaningful measure of relative risk would be zero deaths from all causes is meaningless.

[dilbadoon]

Originally Posted by Xeno

and there, exactly, is taking your cues from individual events rather than from the pattern, the normal distribution of events.

It is, statistically, highly improbable you will be struck by lightning and even less probable you will be eaten by a shark. Tell that to relatives of someone killed by a shark, you may say. "So fucking what?" I say. It is still a fact that the death rate by population from shark attack is lower than that from lighting, and clearly a lot less likely than death in a car. These things are relative. To say that the only meaningful measure of relative risk would be zero deaths from all causes is meaningless.

First up, on this post that's the second time you have caught me out doing that. You are absolutely right, and I completely concede. In my defense it is an easy hole to fall into.

On your previous post, I can't find any points in there that I can disagree with. Thank you for a very detailed and interesting response, you have done a great job in putting things in perspective for me.

[riddlemethis]

OT: I propose a new sub forum - Xeno's School of Statiatics & Probability for the Layperson! :wink:

[Xeno]

I am really happy that my explanation of why I held a different point of view proved meaningful, was understood.

[riddlemethis]

Originally Posted by riddlemethis

OT: I propose a new sub forum - Xeno's School of Statiatics & Probability for the Layperson! :wink:

Gah! Fat fingers on phone keypad! *Statistics*

[ClayMonk]

Originally Posted by riddlemethis

Gah! Fat fingers on phone keypad! *Statistics*

It's better than me yesterday. I wrote an email to an important stakeholder with a new word in it - opportunitities Must have had sex on the brain

[riddlemethis]

Yes well, as rational thinkers, we have to follow the evidence CM! :rofl: