Indians For Guns

An interesting read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564
Iceland is awash in guns, yet it has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. US law student Andrew Clark asks why.



Many people from Iceland, such as these marksmen, use firearms - yet gun crime is rare

Its ICELAND man-COOOOL LAND-hence no murders

It's a bit like how Delhi was in the seventies and early eighties. People slept out doors in the summer with their doors wide open. The only scary part was tales of Hyenas.

> When unemployment is less than 6% (I'm sure this percentage must represent people living in Old Folks Home)
> When children from all economic strata attend the same school
> When 54% top jobs are held by women
> When doors of homes are kept unlocked
> When children are left unattended in playgrounds
> When govt. subsidizes incomes
Where is the need "To steal, attack, destroy or take revenge / kill?
NO WONDER CRIME IS SO RARE / Also because Guns are in Safe Hands
Briha

brihacharan wrote:> When unemployment is less than 6% (I'm sure this percentage must represent people living in Old Folks Home)
> When children from all economic strata attend the same school
> When 54% top jobs are held by women
> When doors of homes are kept unlocked
> When children are left unattended in playgrounds
> When govt. subsidizes incomes
Where is the need "To steal, attack, destroy or take revenge / kill?
NO WONDER CRIME IS SO RARE / Also because Guns are in Safe Hands
Briha

Nice info Brihacharan.

???
In Iceland, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2007: 0.3211
2006: 0.33
2005: 0.34
2004: 0.008
2003: 0.00
2000: 0.3611
1996: 0.37

In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2010: 0.0418
2009: 0.03
2008: 0.05
2007: 0.04
2006: 0.08
2005: 0.07
2004: 0.09
2003: 0.07
2002: 0.05
2001: 0.07
1999: 0.08
1998: 0.06

In other words, the rate of firearms homicide is CONSIDERABLY greater in Iceland than the UK.
Quoting a topic with no reference is utterly meaningless.
It is poor science to quote Iceland as an example of anything.With a total population of only 319,000 it is so atypical that any figures relating to the country can effectively be ignored.

Grumpy wrote:Quoting a topic with no reference is utterly meaningless.
It is poor science to quote Iceland as an example of anything.With a total population of only 319,000 it is so atypical that any figures relating to the country can effectively be ignored.

Not to agree or disagree, but it seems to me that this conclusion is also void of reference -- what is the scientific basis for disregarding Iceland, and what property qualifies something as "being so atypical" that it should be considered an outlier?

Furthermore, I don't see the article posted as referring to homicide by guns. It addresses "Why is violent crime so rare in Iceland?"

The homicide rate for Iceland is 0.3 per lakh,

The homicide rate for the UK is 1.2 per lakh, or 4 times higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

The point was made that violent crime is rare even though `Iceland is awash with guns` so one might expect the homicide rate involving guns to be less than - for example - the UK .....but it is, if fact, considerably higher HOWEVER when the population is so small ( I would have thought a total population of 319,000 is obviously atypically miniscule compared to the huge majority of national populations ) figures can be misleading - a gun homicide rate of 0.3 per 100,000 persons actually indicates a SINGLE death. Small samples can give misleading results which is why statistics based on small samples are unreliable.
Iceland is one of the most individual countries on the planet. Individuals have to be licensed to own a firearm and all guns are registered. Misuse a firearm - eg, shoot into the floor of your own home - and the holders licence is revoked, his guns confiscated and he will be sent for psychiatric counselling. The police don`t carry guns by the way. The actual number of guns in circulation is much more limited than the figures suggest because there are a few individuals who have very large collections - their impact being emphasised due to the atypically small population. Of all the Icelanders I`ve met I only know two that have a gun - both shotguns. There is hunting - for Reindeer ( only 1200 tags annually ) seal and Arctic Fox. Bird shooting is for duck and geese .... and sometimes ptarmigan ( the ptarmigan population has declined dramatically over recent years and hunting them has been banned some years.)
By US standards even the conservative political parties are liberal and the current government is socialist. Iceland has one of the most economically and socially balanced populations imaginable. The small population, Isolation and the former hardship of existence has made Iceland`s people egalitarian and close-knit. You just can`t compare it with anywhere else because there is nowhere else like it.

Amigos Iceland is not that big of an island with very small set of population where its not surprising that folks know each other to a point. Check the news below which proves the point. This maybe another factor that folks dont shoot each other because they all are extended family

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2 ... e-app.html

'Incest Prevention Alarm'

The Islendiga-App — "App of Icelanders" — is an idea that may only be possible in Iceland, where most of the population shares descent from a group of 9th-century Viking settlers, and where an online database holds genealogical details of almost the entire population. 'Bump the app before you bump in bed.'—Islendiga-App slogan"

I can accept that it is different in Iceland, and I can accept that it is small. What I question is the basis for disregarding the human condition in Iceland -- because it is small? Because of its homogeneity? As an appeal was made to "science," as an objection to considering Iceland, I would have expected something based on the Science of Statistics being put forward to show why the "unscientific" voicing of the OP's opinion carried little or no value. I'm wondering if the same properties are present in the call to disregard the original inference as those properties claimed to be in the original inference itself (whatever that may be -- the OP didn't exactly come out and claim anything for certain).

If the majority of guns in Iceland are actually in large collections owned by a few people, what does this mean for Iceland's homicide-by-gun rate being almost 10 times that of the UK's?

Again, the original article is not specifically about guns, as I read it, and figures to bear out the assertion that Iceland doesn't have very much crime compared to other places, including the UK.

And also, I still find no case being made for throwing out Iceland's example when considering issues statistically. The same can be done for any set of statistics one might find inconvenient -- proving what?

So, Navi, I suppose we might say that family trees there don't have too many branches?

Who finds the statistics inconvenient ? Not me.
Who is disregarding the human condition in Iceland ? Certainly not me. Try reading what I said above.
Icelands crime rates ARE very low.
The majority of guns in Iceland are NOT held in large collections - but those that are distort the gun ownership figures.
All I was saying is that the statistics regarding Icelands gun homicide rate can give a very distorted impression. Approximately ten times the gun homicide rate of the UK actually amount to just ONE death.
If you think that`s a reasonable use of statistics then so be it. I wasn`t, and am not, looking for an argument.

timmy wrote: I would have expected something based on the Science of Statistics being put forward to show why the "unscientific" voicing of the OP's opinion carried little or no value

From a barely passable knowledge of statistics, I would have considered that comparing:

A large heterogenous population consisting of different races, origins and ethics, in a country that has large visitor footfalls due to commerce, tourism etc

with

A small (mostly) homonegous population on an isolated island

to derive a behavioural conclusion (which itself is fraught with error, due to humans being unpredictable)

based on the presence or abscence of only one variable,

without matching for the myriad of confounding factors that a population contains

is simply cobbling numbers.

I'd note that representative samples that are not selected at random are not representative.

Also, anthropologists often study very minute populations -- much smaller than Iceland for studying human behavior.