| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The World in Numbers; Random stats | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 29 2007, 02:41 PM (1,294 Views) | |
| Drew | Apr 3 2007, 09:34 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
Making a retort would be too easy. You could actually say true shit about the US to and we'd look bad. |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 3 2007, 11:20 PM Post #27 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Ireland wins for drinking in three categories! And Australia is up there! So knew that was going to come up. I am a bit on being tops for assault. The only explanation I have is that people are terribly fond of taking out orders barring anyone they are having a tiff with from coming near them: that or it is connected to our drinking.
Theft, I have no explanation for. We are too lazy to buy stuff ourselves?
The poorest countries=biggest spenders on arms. There may be a link there they haven't worked out. :( I don't think Israel should really be counted: that money is technically part of the US's military spending.
|
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | Apr 3 2007, 11:33 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
Ireland rules. I so need to go visit that country. |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Apr 4 2007, 04:22 AM Post #29 |
|
puppet dictator
|
The Middle Eastern nations on that list are hardly poor, but the price of peace in Kuwait ain't been cheap. Of course the USA spends more money on military flat out, but as a percentage of GDP? What's the GDP of Eritrea going to be? |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Apr 4 2007, 06:31 AM Post #30 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
Yeah, the US spends the most in sheer dollars on its military, but in terms of GDP ranks 26th at the current rate of 3.7 percent. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 6 2007, 02:09 PM Post #31 |
|
Reliant
|
Couple more crime stats: Most Police per 100,000 Pop: 1. Mauritius 2. Italy 3. Barbados 4. Portugal 5. Hong Kong Most Recorded Crimes per 100,000 pop.: 1. New Zealand 2. Finland 3. UK 4. Denmark 5. Chile 6. Netherlands 7. Canada 8. South Africa 9. Germany 10. Norway 11. France On list one, the closest any of our countries get to being on it is Ireland at #17. The US doesn't make either list. One Enviromental list to whet the appetite: Enviromental Performance Index: Highest: 1. New Zealand 2. Sweden 3. Finland 4. Czech Republic 5. UK 6. Austria 7. Denmark 8. Canada 9. Ireland 10. Malaysia Australia is #20, basically a tie with Norway, the US is tied with the Netherlands at 28 and the list ranks the top 40 countries. Next up the countries with the poorest Enviromental Index ratings. Edit: EPI is based on 6 policy categories: enviromental health; air quality; water resources; biodiversity and habitat; productive natural resources; sustainable energy. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 7 2007, 01:15 PM Post #32 |
|
Reliant
|
Worst Enviromnental Performance: 1. Niger 2. Chad 3. Mauritania 4. Mali 5. Ethiopia 6. Angola 7. Pakistan 8. Burkino Faso 9. Bangladesh 10. Sudan India is #16 and China is #40. Enviromental Health Scores: Highest 1. Sweden 2. France 3. Australia 4. UK 5. Finland 6. Iceland 7. Norway 8. Germany 9. Canada 10. Ireland 11. Denmark 12. Switzerland 13. US 14. New Zealand 15. Austria Highest Concentration of Ozone: 1. Belize 2. Guatemala 3. Mexico 4. China 5. Mongolia 6. Australia 7. Bhutan 8. Nepal 9. US 10. Afghanistan Canada makes the list at #32. I have no idea what this list means. Most Forested: Hectares 1. Russia 2. Brazil 3. Canada 4. US 5. China 6. Australia 7. Congo-Kinshasa 8. Indonesia 9. Peru 10. India Forests: As % of land. 1. Suriname 2. Gabon 3. Finland (Finland is on the most forested list at #26) 3. Guinea-Bissau 4. Belize 5. Laos Canada, Australia and the US are not on the list. Russia is on the list at #33. A note, Puerto Rico is on this list at #41 with 46.0% forested land and the only forest I've seen is the rainforest with that exception, I wouldn't call PR heavily forested. These two lists cause me to ask this question: Which list is the truer indicator? By hectares or land percentage, I would say by hectares yet percentage of forested land should be an indicator but I know Puerto Rico is not heavily forested. If driving the length of PR, the only forest you pass is the rainforest. Biggest Loss of Forested Land: Annual Change 2000-2005, hectares '000: 1. Brazil -3,103 2. Indonesia -1,871 3. Sudan -589 Biggest Loss of Forested Land: % 1. Burundi -5.2 2. Togo -4.5 3. Mauritania -3.4 Biggest Gain in Forested Land: By hectares '000. 2000-2005 1. China 4,058 2. Spain 296 3. Vietnam 241 4. US 159 5. Italy 6. Chile 7. Cuba 8. Bulgaria 9. France 10. Portugal |
| |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 7 2007, 02:03 PM Post #33 |
|
Reliant
|
A couple of years ago I looked vaguely into stats about murder/suicide rates per country and I'd thought I'd share my completely erroneous thoughts on the matter. Sadly, I can no longer quote the actual statistics: 1. Most murders occur in metropolitan areas. For an example, a neighboring state had 200 murders, 1/2 the murders occured in the metropolitan area comprised of 1.5 million people, the rest were dispersed throughout the state and a population of 5 million. I don't know if suicide occurs more frequently in metropolitan areas. 2. The US's murder/suicide rate is roughly equal. I think it's roughly 14 per 100,000. I think. I believe Canada has roughly equal murder/suicide rates too although of course lower. Interestingly if you combine both suicide and murder, many times it will combine higher than the US's combined rates. Forinstance, France has a low murder rate, iirc(?), murder is 2 or 3 per 100,000 but has a suicide rate of something like 20 per 100,000 which would be 23 deaths per 100,000, considerably higher than the US. I think I read somewhere that France has one of the highest percentages of population on legal mood altering drugs. 3. Traditionally Catholic countries appear to have higher murder rates than suicide rates. However, suicides may not be accurately reported. 4. Russia and the ex-Soviet satelite countries have murder/suicide rates that are equal and some of the highest recorded in the world. 43 deaths (and higher although none above 50) deaths per 100,000. I attributed the rates to the lingering effects of communism and the continuing lack of opportunities. The east Germans (or ex ) continue to have less opportunity than West Germans almost a generation after Reunification and have higher suicide/murder rates. 3. Scandanavians in general have high suicide rates. I thought depression from the lack of light in the winter. I think it was around roughly 16 suicides per 100,000. 2 or 3 murders per 100,000. 4. Australia and New Zealand have high suicide rates. The rates are in the teens. Too much light or is possibly concentrated in the aboriginal population? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 9 2007, 01:17 AM Post #34 |
|
Reliant
|
25 Most Corrupt Nations in Pictures |
| |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 11 2007, 12:42 PM Post #35 |
|
Reliant
|
‘More than half’ of Indian children suffer sexual abuse
Oh yeah, Western phenomenon, India has no history of child sexual abuse, slavery or child marriages, it's the damn Westerners. Yup, naturally. Not to say the West doesn't have a history either but really. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 19 2007, 03:51 PM Post #36 |
|
Reliant
|
These stats might might be a little off: US population: 300 million + Guns in circulation: 298 million + Murders/Suicides/Accidental Deaths by guns: 25,000.
Douglas J. Allan, For The Bulletin 04/18/2007 Vermont has a population of 600,000. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Apr 26 2007, 05:43 PM Post #37 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Has anything changed in the US re gun control since that latest shooting? |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 26 2007, 09:18 PM Post #38 |
|
Reliant
|
No. |
| |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Apr 27 2007, 02:40 AM Post #39 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
Even if they wanted to change anything, do you really think they could have got anything through in less the 2 weeks. The only thing is VA should have registered him as mentally incompetant or danger to himself or others, the judge deemed him so, but gave him a choice of seeking treatment himself or having it court ordered, if it would have been court ordered it would have been in the NICS and he would have been denied, but because he went himself it wasn't, I think it should have been. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 27 2007, 08:17 AM Post #40 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I need time to assimilate the fabulous range of information here. Therefore my comment is The news reports here fell over themselves to show his video rant: and then ended every replay with a comment on how wrong it was to show it. My school has a split campus: primary and secondary, and people were extremely distressed at the thought he was able to move through the two campuses. The problem with saying that only crazy people can't have guns, is identifying the onset of craziness. It can happen quickly, it can be slow. Really, change the gun laws. Having a gun means you can kill someone. Do you really need to? That is the question. |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Apr 27 2007, 01:00 PM Post #41 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
It wasn't that long ago people used to bring guns to school, and we didn't have shootings, they would bring their guns intheir cars, and go hunting after school.In Utah a permit holder can bring a gun into a K-12 school, so teachers with permits can come in armed, how many shootings are there in Utah? Having a gun doesn't mean you will kill someone, I will wager that my 9 guns have killed far fewer people then Teddy Kennedy's cars. The reason for those who want to have a gun is personal self defense, it is a God given right, it is up to you to defend yourself, it is not the duty of the police, the DC court has ruled that citizens don't have an expectation of protection from the police, now they will protect you if they see something going down, and you are caught in the middle of it, but they aren't expected to be in your home and everywhere you may go 24/7, they show after the fact and solve what happened afterwards. So it's up to you, if you so choose, to defend yourself. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=55366 Banning guns will not stop shootings, just like banning drugs didn't stop drug use, how well has that worked? If owning a gun is a crime then only criminals will have a gun, do you think that a criminal will change his mind about buying a gun if it's a crime? 'I'm going to rob a bank, but I better not get a gun to do it with, it is illegal.' Criminals don't attack/prey on armed citizenry, and arming citizens doesn't automatically mean an increase in crime. http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=55288 A few armed responsible citizens, or maybe if there had been an off-duty officer taking some class at VT, or maybe some members of the VT ROTC, ( I assume theyt had one) would have stopped the shootings a lot quicker. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=54247 (good thing the officer was there) |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Apr 27 2007, 02:55 PM Post #42 |
|
puppet dictator
|
It's very difficult for those of us in other countries to wrap our heads around these things. We don't have guns, don't feel the need to defend ourselves, and it's very rare that anything comes up from which we might even remotely feel justified in wanting to defend ourselves. So other people making the "self defense" argument come across as a bit paranoid, at the very least. Total cultural disconnect. As for hunting, well, again, hard for me to relate to, since I live in a city and hunters kinda have to make special trips and not bring their paraphanalia to the office. But I don't necessarily bring stuff for my hobbies to work either, whether that's because it's awkward, inconvenient, or not socially acceptable. It deoends on the activity. I'm thinking unkind thoughts now about pleasant little old ladies being banned from having their knitting needles on airplanes. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Apr 27 2007, 06:51 PM Post #43 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Indeed Bex, over here too, there is very little reason to own a gun (or knife) and even the police are not routinely armed, and I'm glad they have resisted the calls to change that as I think it would "up the ante" so to speak. That's not to say there aren't problems especially with self-defence where people who have defended their homes from robbers and the like have often been the ones going to prison for assault charges on the robber! So in fact you may be making things worse for yourself for those sorts of purposes. I really think anyone who commits a crime like that should forfeit such rights to contersue but that is another debate altogether. |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Apr 27 2007, 07:15 PM Post #44 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
I can see that.
That is definatly wrong, that's about like saying if a robber comes into your house you should help him carry things out, because anything else he may sue you or send you to jail for attempting to stop him. (well maybe a litle exaggerated, but I think you get the idea) As I probably said before, I didn't own a gun until last year, and I never had a problem with law-abiding citizens owning them, it only takes ~1-2% population to carry a gun to scare the criminals. I was listening to the radio the other day someone from TX said they had a problem with a certain type of crime where they would rear end single women in cars, (women who were alone in a car, as they wouldn't really know if they were married or not ) then assault them when they pulled over, after passing the CCW law in TX those crimes stopped, the criminals didn't know if their victim was armed or not, and they weren't going to take the chance, once again only 1-2% of population had a permit, and maybe only 10% of those went to women, but that was enough to stop the criminals. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 27 2007, 09:50 PM Post #45 |
|
Reliant
|
I don't think a Cho is a reason for a cultural disconnect. Every country suffers this type of killing and equally barbaric serial and mass murderers. I can't speak for cities either but in the country there's every reason for a person to bring a firearm to work usually to go hunting after work. My state has high gun ownership and very few murders and very few of the murders are committed by gun. Some of the murders are committed by furr'eners (out of staters). A case that recently may have garnered international press was the double murders of Dartmouth professors which was a thrill crime committed by two teenage boys from Vermont and the couple were savagely butchered with knives. underdog seems more on top of the VT killings than I am but in theory the laws should have kept guns from Cho, it was a loophole in the law that allowed him to purchase guns. From all accounts, Cho was seriously disturbed and it's more shocking to me that this ill and dangerous individual did not receive treatment when his dysfunction was noticed by all for many years. This was a very avoidable tragedy. Everybody knew this killer was exceptionally peculiar but there was no follow through to get either help or to confine him. More stats: 17 million college students in the US. On average 20 murders a year occur on campus. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 28 2007, 12:31 AM Post #46 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Hunting? Fine. Go ahead and have a hunting rifle. If you are sane. And be subjected to restrictions on how much damage you can cause if you choose to shoot at something other than animals. Farmers need guns too. They manage not to kill too many people with them. But they certainly don't carry them about town in their daily business. It's dangerous to others. The guns are kept locked up, and everyone learns how to use them responsibly. Laws restrict how much danger others are placed in by those guns. People who admire guns as pieces of craftmanship are entitled to join gun clubs, and shoot at targets, and own guns. But the safety of others means restrictions apply. Freedom and rights come with responsibilities: we are members of a community and have obligations to others. The idea that because we used to do something in the olden days, it must be OK now is flawed thinking. Especially when it was dangerous then. We didn't wear seatbelts in the olden days, or put children in safety harnesses in the car, and we drove at ninety kmhs instead of 60 to school. Bad bad ideas. We know better now. The notion that laws that stop me from doing what I want are unfair is based on rankest selfishness and disregard for others.
I disagree strongly with you, underdog. Like Bex, I really can't come at this idea- and I think it's interesting that both she and I come from places that didn't have a war to become independent, and that might be the cultural disconnect we experience. God-given? Come on. That's really emotive. It's a justification, not a reason. What you are saying is, "I need to be able to kill anyone who threatens me." Carrying a gun in such an instance is about having a sense of personal power and control: which I would be all for, but I don't see carrying a gun as empowering in a positive way. In the event of being attacked by someone, I would much prefer for them to die, not me: but the probabilities are that if I had a gun, I would still die anyway, but I just might take out my attacker too. Mmmm. I'll feel much better knowing the bastard was dead too. To say "knives are dangerous, people get killed by knives and they're not banned" is a distraction. The issue is whether the safety of citizens is jeopardised by "guns for everybody" laws. And yes, it is. It is appalling to me that because of a law that was necessary three hundred years ago, children are dying at school today. It's unacceptable. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 28 2007, 04:11 AM Post #47 |
|
Reliant
|
I can't say whether anything is a God given right but the right to bear arms is a constuitional right. I think many people outside the US fail to understand that the US does have gun restriction laws not only on a Federal level but also on a State level. I think it's a pity that the laws did not prevent sale of guns to Cho. I also think it's egregious that nobody did anything about this man although his mental health issues were noted by almost all who came in to contact with him. The laws should have prevented Cho from purchasing weapons but the laws failed. Cho should have been removed from VT but all the safeguards failed; his family, the law, the institutions, his friends (if any) all let Cho slide in spite of knowledge and evidence that he was dysfunctional and dangerous. The vast majority of gun owners use and own guns responsibly. It is the minority that use them irresponsibly. A far greater burden to society is alcohol. Not only does it cost society enormously in health costs, lost productivity and wages but it is also a killer of innocents, a far greater number than guns. |
| |
![]() |
|
| lara | Apr 28 2007, 04:11 AM Post #48 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I missed the part of the Bible where God said every person has a right to carry a gun. I do remember the "turn your other cheek" bit, though. And Reg, the cultural disconnect is not the shootings - we've had several crazy people shoot up schools - it's the idea that people have a right to own guns, and that owning guns makes people safer. I mean, people don't have a right to own a car - they have to be a certain age, pass a test, have a licence, get appropriate insurance... and all of it can be taken away from them if they abuse the priviledge. PRIVELEDGE, not right. You need a bloody licence to fish. So how does a gun become a right? That's what we want to know. How does a gun get tied to GOD, for land's sakes? Here's something interesting that I found: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-rel...ss04102007.html |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 28 2007, 04:31 AM Post #49 |
|
Reliant
|
The link is interesting although I'm on the fence about suicide. When is suicide an individual right, etc., etc. Anyone know anything about the trend of Japanese mass suicides? There are numerous laws regarding licensing, sale of guns, types of guns, etc. underdog seems to be more on top of the issue than I am and probably has good links in reference to the various laws. The only people I know with guns either have them for hunting, collectors or the law. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Drew | Apr 28 2007, 05:35 AM Post #50 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
Immigrant laborers. |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |







Ireland wins for drinking in three categories! And Australia is up there!
So knew that was going to come up.
on being tops for assault. The only explanation I have is that people are terribly fond of taking out orders barring anyone they are having a tiff with from coming near them: that or it is connected to our drinking.
Theft, I have no explanation for. We are too lazy to buy stuff ourselves?


4:31 PM Jul 13