mnealtx 0 #51 May 1, 2007 Quote You are at liberty to do your own research to prove any point you are trying to make. However, I suggest you actually do the research before claiming to know the result. Expecting others to do your research for you is just plain lazy. Similar to finding a website that posts data, so you don't have to? Quote Couldn't find any data to support your assertions, eh? I took the liberty of looking up totals for murders (since Chicago doesn't report rapes, I couldn't do a violent crime comparison using the FBI's violent crime numbers) and 100k rates for Houston and Chicago (since both cities are of similar size) and the states. Murders 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Texas 1,407 1,364 1418 1302 1332 1238 Illinois 766 776 896 949 986 891 Rate/100k Texas 6.15 6.06 6.41 5.98 6.25 5.94 Illinois 6.00 6.10 7.08 7.53 7.90 7.17 Murders 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Houston 334 272 278 256 267 230 Chicago 448 448 598 648 666 628 Rate/100k Houston 16.33 13.31 13.62 12.55 13.36 11.98 Chicago 15.59 15.54 20.63 22.38 22.88 21.91 Percent of state total Houston 23.74% 19.94% 19.61% 19.66% 20.05% 18.58% Chicago 58.49% 57.73% 66.74% 68.28% 67.55% 70.48% Just admit it, Doc... it's not the availability of the guns... it's the people using them.... otherwise Texas would have much higher numbers, what with having a higher percentage of gun owners...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #52 May 1, 2007 Your claim was: > Chicago and NYC don't make the top 10. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 May 1, 2007 QuoteRate/100k Houston 16.33 13.31 13.62 12.55 13.36 11.98 Chicago 15.59 15.54 20.63 22.38 22.88 21.91 Ah - just as I suspected. Houston had a small spike above the 5 years prior that would put it over Chicago last 2 years (but creams the 6 year average). I know they blame Katrina for any problems - 2007's values should indicate if it was a one year abberation or not. Chicago has 2 good years at the same rate which suggests a nice improvement from the 4 years prior. It's still 10% higher than the trendline for the Wild West of Houston. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #54 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Rate/100k Houston 16.33 13.31 13.62 12.55 13.36 11.98 Chicago 15.59 15.54 20.63 22.38 22.88 21.91 Ah - just as I suspected. Houston had a small spike above the 5 years prior that would put it over Chicago last 2 years (but creams the 6 year average). I know they blame Katrina for any problems - 2007's values should indicate if it was a one year abberation or not. Chicago has 2 good years at the same rate which suggests a nice improvement from the 4 years prior. It's still 10% higher than the trendline for the Wild West of Houston. Looks to me like Chicago is improving faster.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #55 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Couldn't find any data to support your assertions, eh? Tell you what - when you find a state that gives felony convictions to people going 15mph over the limit, I'll spend time proving the obvious - Chicago has crime problems. The claim, which you seem to have forgotten, was a comparison with Houston. No one denies that there is crime in Chicago. I haven't been following this thread, so I'm not sure what the debate is about, but if you're looking at 2005 or 2006 crime statistics for Houston, you should remember that Houston suffered a spike in crime, due to the influx of Katrina evacuees. At least that's what was reported in the news media--I haven't actually seen the numbers to back it up.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #56 May 2, 2007 Quotehttp://cbs2chicago.com/investigations/local_story_317213201.html Check this out. Kallend said you can't argue with the FBI data and bullet holes?? My two year old is easier to follow sometimes. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #57 May 2, 2007 do some research and you will find that states who adopt conceal and carry, their crime rates homicide assault, etc. go down by quite a bit. Criminals will have guns no matter if they are legal or not. States that are more restrictive have higher rates in every aspect. Lets say you are going to rob a business, and you know that out of the 60 people in there probably at least 1-3 people have a gun. That might be eonugh to change your mind in roobing that place.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #58 May 2, 2007 Quotedo some research and you will find that states who adopt conceal and carry, their crime rates homicide assault, etc. go down by quite a bit. Criminals will have guns no matter if they are legal or not. States that are more restrictive have higher rates in every aspect. Please post the latest FBI data in support of your claim.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #59 May 2, 2007 For someone who places so much fault with the current government you sure put a lot of faith in their statistics. A few keystrokes and a couple clicks is all it takes to find not only your favored FBI data but more and also assembled in a nice report. www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007 BTW, still waiting for you to tell us what all those other aircraft were that flew into buildings because of NY ATC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #60 May 2, 2007 QuoteFor someone who places so much fault with the current government you sure put a lot of faith in their statistics. A few keystrokes and a couple clicks is all it takes to find not only your favored FBI data but more and also assembled in a nice report. www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007 BTW, still waiting for you to tell us what all those other aircraft were that flew into buildings because of NY ATC. Who said "because of". A little more care in your reading is called for. Please post actual FBI data comparing no carry states with the others, not NRA propaganda. I don't post data from Brady sites.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #61 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteFor someone who places so much fault with the current government you sure put a lot of faith in their statistics. A few keystrokes and a couple clicks is all it takes to find not only your favored FBI data but more and also assembled in a nice report. www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007 Who said "because of". A little more care in your reading is called for. Please post actual FBI data comparing no carry states with the others, not NRA propaganda. I don't post data from Brady sites. You wanted FBI data, I posted FBI data. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you. But then, you have a perfect track record of not admitting when you are wrong. No reason to think you will do any different regarding the crime stats. Edited to stay on topic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #62 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote For someone who places so much fault with the current government you sure put a lot of faith in their statistics. A few keystrokes and a couple clicks is all it takes to find not only your favored FBI data but more and also assembled in a nice report. www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007 BTW, still waiting for you to tell us what all those other aircraft were that flew into buildings because of NY ATC. Who said "because of". A little more care in your reading is called for. Please post actual FBI data comparing no carry states with the others, not NRA propaganda. I don't post data from Brady sites. Quote ATC has a great track record of preventing aircraft from hitting buildings, especially in Manhattan. Your statement specifically implies it was the fault of ATC. In any case, where are all the incidents? You wanted FBI data, I posted FBI data. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you. But then, you have a perfect track record of not admitting when you are wrong. No reason to think you will do any different regarding the crime stats or ATC. You posted NRA's version of FBI data. NOT EXACTLY the same thing. You misread the ATC thread - just like pounds as units of mass, I guess2005 data from the FBI: Homicide rate per 100,000 in "NO CARRY" states - 4.85 Homicide rate per 100,000 in USA overall - 5.6 Violent crime rate per 100,000 in NO CARRY states - 436 Violent crime rate per 100,000 USA overall - 469 NO CARRY states as defined by packing.org - a pro-gun web site.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #63 May 2, 2007 Quote You wanted FBI data, I posted FBI data. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you. But then, you have a perfect track record of not admitting when you are wrong. No reason to think you will do any different regarding the crime stats. I seem to recall Kallend going back and admitting he was wrong.... once. I guess he finally realized his diversions weren't working. Perfect track record? I say Nay! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #64 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote You wanted FBI data, I posted FBI data. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you. But then, you have a perfect track record of not admitting when you are wrong. No reason to think you will do any different regarding the crime stats. I seem to recall Kallend going back and admitting he was wrong.... once. I guess he finally realized his diversions weren't working. Perfect track record? I say Nay! My bad. I should know nobody here, least of all myself, is perfect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #65 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote For someone who places so much fault with the current government you sure put a lot of faith in their statistics. A few keystrokes and a couple clicks is all it takes to find not only your favored FBI data but more and also assembled in a nice report. www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007 BTW, still waiting for you to tell us what all those other aircraft were that flew into buildings because of NY ATC. Who said "because of". A little more care in your reading is called for. Please post actual FBI data comparing no carry states with the others, not NRA propaganda. I don't post data from Brady sites. Quote ATC has a great track record of preventing aircraft from hitting buildings, especially in Manhattan. Your statement specifically implies it was the fault of ATC. In any case, where are all the incidents? You wanted FBI data, I posted FBI data. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you. But then, you have a perfect track record of not admitting when you are wrong. No reason to think you will do any different regarding the crime stats or ATC. You posted NRA's version of FBI data. NOT EXACTLY the same thing. You misread the ATC thread - just like pounds as units of mass, I guess2005 data from the FBI: Homicide rate per 100,000 in "NO CARRY" states - 4.85 Homicide rate per 100,000 in USA overall - 5.6 Violent crime rate per 100,000 in NO CARRY states - 436 Violent crime rate per 100,000 USA overall - 469 NO CARRY states as defined by packing.org - a pro-gun web site. What? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #66 May 2, 2007 Quote 2005 data from the FBI: Homicide rate per 100,000 in "NO CARRY" states - 4.85 Homicide rate per 100,000 in USA overall - 5.6 Violent crime rate per 100,000 in NO CARRY states - 436 Violent crime rate per 100,000 USA overall - 469 NO CARRY states as defined by packing.org - a pro-gun web site. What? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? YOU are at liberty to do YOUR OWN RESEARCH to make any point you wish to make. Just use real data, not the NRA's propaganda.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #67 May 2, 2007 What? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? More importantly, comparisons between "no carry" states and "all" states don't speak to the issue of how gun control laws affect crime. What would be more telling would be violent crime rates before and after gun control legislation is passed. Over time, if there were a trend across the board (in all or most states that gun control legislation were enacted), it would suggest that the legislation affects violent crime in one way or another (edited to add the following) if those trends varied markedly from the overall trends or trends in states without gun-control legislation. There could be many reasons that "no carry" states have lower violent crime rates than the others. That data doesn't impress me at all in this discussion.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #68 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote 2005 data from the FBI: Homicide rate per 100,000 in "NO CARRY" states - 4.85 Homicide rate per 100,000 in USA overall - 5.6 Violent crime rate per 100,000 in NO CARRY states - 436 Violent crime rate per 100,000 USA overall - 469 NO CARRY states as defined by packing.org - a pro-gun web site. What? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? YOU are at liberty to do YOUR OWN RESEARCH to make any point you wish to make. Just use real data, not the NRA's propaganda. That "propaganda", as you call it, has sources listed. It is real data taken from reliable sources including thsoe you wanted. The sources are listed in the event someone, such as yourself, doesn't trust what the NRA put on their website. You are free to check the accuracy of the figures. If you don't want to believe what is on NRAILA site, and are too lazy to check to sources they gave, then I don't know what to tell you. I guess you're just going to believe what you want regardless of the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuotedo some research and you will find that states who adopt conceal and carry, their crime rates homicide assault, etc. go down by quite a bit. Criminals will have guns no matter if they are legal or not. States that are more restrictive have higher rates in every aspect. Please post the latest FBI data in support of your claim. I already did... notice you haven't said anything about it, though....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #70 May 2, 2007 Quote Looks to me like Chicago is improving faster. It's easier to improve when you're further off the bell curve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #71 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Looks to me like Chicago is improving faster. It's easier to improve when you're further off the bell curve. Take a look at Dallas... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #72 May 2, 2007 QuoteWhat? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? More importantly, comparisons between "no carry" states and "all" states don't speak to the issue of how gun control laws affect crime. What would be more telling would be violent crime rates before and after gun control legislation is passed. Over time, if there were a trend across the board (in all or most states that gun control legislation were enacted), it would suggest that the legislation affects violent crime in one way or another (edited to add the following) if those trends varied markedly from the overall trends or trends in states without gun-control legislation. There could be many reasons that "no carry" states have lower violent crime rates than the others. That data doesn't impress me at all in this discussion. Chicago's homicide rate has been decreasing faster than Dallas's or Houston's. Take a look.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 May 2, 2007 So? You're saying it's the availability of guns...if that's so, Chicago's murder rate should have ALWAYS been lower...and it isn't. You can cherry pick data all you want, John...but the data doesn't support you. Some quotes from prison interviews, from a 2001 work by David Kopel: Quote"So we drove down the road, and I was lookin' for a house that looked like if there was somebody at home that it'd be somebody that didn't carry a gun or didn't have no weapons in the house, so they couldn't use them." -- Arkansas burglar QuoteSaid one burglar: "I don't think about gettin' caught, I think about gettin' gunned down, shot or somethin'...'cause you get into some people's houses...quick as I come in there, boom, they hit you right there. That's what I think about." And a few quotes from the body of the report: QuoteReal-world experiments yield results consistent with burglars' reports of their desire to avoid confrontations with armed victims. In Orlando in 1967, the police responded to a rape epidemic by initiating a highly publicized program training women in firearms use. [FN85] While rape increased in the nation and in *357 Florida over the next year, the rape rate fell eighty- eight percent in Orlando, and burglary dropped twenty-two percent. [FN86] The same year, rising rates of store robberies prompted a similar (but smaller-scale) program in Kansas City, Missouri, to train store owners in gun use. [FN87] The next year, while the robbery rate in Missouri and the United States continued to rise significantly, the rate fell in the Kansas City metro area. The trend of increasing burglary in the area also came to an abrupt end, contrary to state and national patterns. [FN88] In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring every home to have a gun. [FN89] Exceptions were made for conscientious objectors, people with criminal records, and for people in various other categories. [FN90] In the seven months before the ordinance, there had been forty-five residential burglaries; in the seven months after the ordinance, residential burglaries declined eighty-nine percent. [FN91] Over the next five years, the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was eighty-five percent below the rate before the enactment of the ordinance. [FN92]Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #74 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote What? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? More importantly, comparisons between "no carry" states and "all" states don't speak to the issue of how gun control laws affect crime. What would be more telling would be violent crime rates before and after gun control legislation is passed. Over time, if there were a trend across the board (in all or most states that gun control legislation were enacted), it would suggest that the legislation affects violent crime in one way or another (edited to add the following) if those trends varied markedly from the overall trends or trends in states without gun-control legislation. There could be many reasons that "no carry" states have lower violent crime rates than the others. That data doesn't impress me at all in this discussion. Chicago's homicide rate has been decreasing faster than Dallas's or Houston's. Take a look. That's a start, but there needs to be more depth to the study. It needs a bigger n to be valid. -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #75 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote What? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? More importantly, comparisons between "no carry" states and "all" states don't speak to the issue of how gun control laws affect crime. What would be more telling would be violent crime rates before and after gun control legislation is passed. Over time, if there were a trend across the board (in all or most states that gun control legislation were enacted), it would suggest that the legislation affects violent crime in one way or another (edited to add the following) if those trends varied markedly from the overall trends or trends in states without gun-control legislation. There could be many reasons that "no carry" states have lower violent crime rates than the others. That data doesn't impress me at all in this discussion. Chicago's homicide rate has been decreasing faster than Dallas's or Houston's. Take a look. That's a start, but there needs to be more depth to the study. It needs a bigger n to be valid. Chicago has some 2M residents - how large a sample do you need?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
