Lefty 0 #1 January 9, 2008 Story Surprised?Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeG 0 #2 January 9, 2008 Not really, I think CCW is a good think. If you would forbid it, the maniacs will still get guns. So it is in my opinion better to toss out some licenses to people and IF something happens, they can act. QuoteIn September, a 36-year-old Troy man killed an armed 18-year-old assailant who, with three other suspects, attempted to steal his car outside Detroit Police headquarters. This speaks for itself I would say. And the people who are misusing their right to carry a weapon... well if they want to go on a rampage in the office, they still would be able to get a gun and do that without a CCW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #3 January 9, 2008 Depends who you believe. DATA from TABLE 5, FBI UCR Michigan violent crime rate per 100,000 2000 2001 2006 555.0 554.7 562.4 Change 2000 to 2006, +1.3% For comparison, Illinois 2000 2001 2006 656.8 639.6 541.6 Change 2000 to 2006, -17% So it seems that Illinois, which has no CCW permits, experienced a much greater drop in violent crime over the 6 year period than Michigan. (Note, FBI UCR data for 2007 are not yet available) For HOMICIDES and non-negligent manslaughter Michigan rates 2000 2006 % change 6.7 7.1 +6.0 Illinois rates 2000 2006 % change 7.2 6.1 -15.3 Speaks for itself, I'd say.... 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
KelliJ 0 #4 January 9, 2008 The data used in the article was based on the average change each year. Your data is overall change. Not the same thing. I've noticed that you support the 2nd Amendment, yet you seem to have an issue with those who want to carry a concealed firearm. Am I making an accurate assumption? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeG 0 #5 January 9, 2008 Quote Depends who you believe. DATA from TABLE 5, FBI UCR Michigan violent crime rate per 100,000 2000 2001 2006 555.0 554.7 562.4 Change 2000 to 2006, +1.3% For comparison, Illinois 2000 2001 2006 656.8 639.6 541.6 Change 2000 to 2006, -17% So it seems that Illinois, which has no CCW permits, experienced a much greater drop in violent crime over the 6 year period than Michigan. (Note, FBI UCR data for 2007 are not yet available) For HOMICIDES and non-negligent manslaughter Michigan rates 2000 2006 % change 6.7 7.1 +6.0 Illinois rates 2000 2006 % change 7.2 6.1 -15.3 Speaks for itself, I'd say. You said it yourself: Depends on who you believe. Don´t you think the FBI has a interest in reducing the weapons out there? It wouldn´t be the first time that the FBI is actively LOBBYING for something. And statistics can always be "tweaked" to prove a point. That´s why I was using logic reasons as an argument and not a statistic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #6 January 9, 2008 Quote Quote Depends who you believe. DATA from TABLE 5, FBI UCR Michigan violent crime rate per 100,000 2000 2001 2006 555.0 554.7 562.4 Change 2000 to 2006, +1.3% For comparison, Illinois 2000 2001 2006 656.8 639.6 541.6 Change 2000 to 2006, -17% So it seems that Illinois, which has no CCW permits, experienced a much greater drop in violent crime over the 6 year period than Michigan. (Note, FBI UCR data for 2007 are not yet available) For HOMICIDES and non-negligent manslaughter Michigan rates 2000 2006 % change 6.7 7.1 +6.0 Illinois rates 2000 2006 % change 7.2 6.1 -15.3 Speaks for itself, I'd say. You said it yourself: Depends on who you believe. Don´t you think the FBI has a interest in reducing the weapons out there? It wouldn´t be the first time that the FBI is actively LOBBYING for something. And statistics can always be "tweaked" to prove a point. That´s why I was using logic reasons as an argument and not a statistic. I don't recall your complaining when mnealtx suggested using FBI stats in support of his position on guns. I don't think homicide statistics are easy to "tweak", either. Hard to invent homicides that didn't happen, or conceal those that did and were reported.... 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
ZeG 0 #7 January 9, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Depends who you believe. DATA from TABLE 5, FBI UCR Michigan violent crime rate per 100,000 2000 2001 2006 555.0 554.7 562.4 Change 2000 to 2006, +1.3% For comparison, Illinois 2000 2001 2006 656.8 639.6 541.6 Change 2000 to 2006, -17% So it seems that Illinois, which has no CCW permits, experienced a much greater drop in violent crime over the 6 year period than Michigan. (Note, FBI UCR data for 2007 are not yet available) For HOMICIDES and non-negligent manslaughter Michigan rates 2000 2006 % change 6.7 7.1 +6.0 Illinois rates 2000 2006 % change 7.2 6.1 -15.3 Speaks for itself, I'd say. You said it yourself: Depends on who you believe. Don´t you think the FBI has a interest in reducing the weapons out there? It wouldn´t be the first time that the FBI is actively LOBBYING for something. And statistics can always be "tweaked" to prove a point. That´s why I was using logic reasons as an argument and not a statistic. I don't recall your complaining when mnealtx suggested using FBI stats in support of his position on guns. I don't think homicide statistics are easy to "tweak", either. Hard to invent homicides that didn't happen, or conceal those that did and were reported. First I am not complaining, merely hinting out to be careful with them. And I am not talking about inventing homicides, but I had a course in statistics at the university and believe me, there ARE severeal ways to put together a statistics to get a different outcome. Or do you think my math prof who is doing that kind of stuff for 30 years was mistaken? Edit: Oh and I am not saying the FBIs statistic is wrong, but they DO have a strong interest in lobbying against weapons, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #8 January 9, 2008 QuoteThe data used in the article was based on the average change each year. Your data is overall change. Not the same thing. I've noticed that you support the 2nd Amendment, yet you seem to have an issue with those who want to carry a concealed firearm. Am I making an accurate assumption? 1. I don't have a problem with people who have been thoroughly vetted carrying a concealed weapon. 2. Since the article gave no source AT ALL for its data, I suggest that we believe the FBI instead. 3. Average rates went down MORE in Illinois too. IL is a neighboring midwestern state with similar demographics but NO CCW permits. Hence it is impossible to claim that any change in MI was due to its CCW law. 4. Average violent crime rates went down across the entire USA during the same period. 5. Quoting John Lott (or is it Mary Rosh this week) is not an indication of credibility. 6. According to the FBI, homicides are actually UP in Michigan compared to before the CCW law passed. 7. IOW, the article in the Detroit Free Press cited no source, used no control group for comparison, and was a load of bollocks.... 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 1,679 #9 January 9, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Depends who you believe. DATA from TABLE 5, FBI UCR Michigan violent crime rate per 100,000 2000 2001 2006 555.0 554.7 562.4 Change 2000 to 2006, +1.3% For comparison, Illinois 2000 2001 2006 656.8 639.6 541.6 Change 2000 to 2006, -17% So it seems that Illinois, which has no CCW permits, experienced a much greater drop in violent crime over the 6 year period than Michigan. (Note, FBI UCR data for 2007 are not yet available) For HOMICIDES and non-negligent manslaughter Michigan rates 2000 2006 % change 6.7 7.1 +6.0 Illinois rates 2000 2006 % change 7.2 6.1 -15.3 Speaks for itself, I'd say. You said it yourself: Depends on who you believe. Don´t you think the FBI has a interest in reducing the weapons out there? It wouldn´t be the first time that the FBI is actively LOBBYING for something. And statistics can always be "tweaked" to prove a point. That´s why I was using logic reasons as an argument and not a statistic. I don't recall your complaining when mnealtx suggested using FBI stats in support of his position on guns. I don't think homicide statistics are easy to "tweak", either. Hard to invent homicides that didn't happen, or conceal those that did and were reported. First I am not complaining, merely hinting out to be careful with them. And I am not talking about inventing homicides, but I had a course in statistics at the university OOOhh that's impressive! and believe me, there ARE severeal ways to put together a statistics to get a different outcome. Or do you think my math prof who is doing that kind of stuff for 30 years was mistaken? Edit: Oh and I am not saying the FBIs statistic is wrong, but they DO have a strong interest in lobbying against weapons, right? 1. Did your math prof teach you anything about the difference between raw data and analysis of data? 2. Did your math prof teach you anything about the use of controls? 3. Why do you claim the FBI is interested in falsifying its data? What evidence do you have that it does this? 4. How would you go about manipulating the number of homicides to get a different outcome?... 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
ZeG 0 #10 January 9, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Depends who you believe. DATA from TABLE 5, FBI UCR Michigan violent crime rate per 100,000 2000 2001 2006 555.0 554.7 562.4 Change 2000 to 2006, +1.3% For comparison, Illinois 2000 2001 2006 656.8 639.6 541.6 Change 2000 to 2006, -17% So it seems that Illinois, which has no CCW permits, experienced a much greater drop in violent crime over the 6 year period than Michigan. (Note, FBI UCR data for 2007 are not yet available) For HOMICIDES and non-negligent manslaughter Michigan rates 2000 2006 % change 6.7 7.1 +6.0 Illinois rates 2000 2006 % change 7.2 6.1 -15.3 Speaks for itself, I'd say. You said it yourself: Depends on who you believe. Don´t you think the FBI has a interest in reducing the weapons out there? It wouldn´t be the first time that the FBI is actively LOBBYING for something. And statistics can always be "tweaked" to prove a point. That´s why I was using logic reasons as an argument and not a statistic. I don't recall your complaining when mnealtx suggested using FBI stats in support of his position on guns. I don't think homicide statistics are easy to "tweak", either. Hard to invent homicides that didn't happen, or conceal those that did and were reported. First I am not complaining, merely hinting out to be careful with them. And I am not talking about inventing homicides, but I had a course in statistics at the university OOOhh that's impressive! and believe me, there ARE severeal ways to put together a statistics to get a different outcome. Or do you think my math prof who is doing that kind of stuff for 30 years was mistaken? Edit: Oh and I am not saying the FBIs statistic is wrong, but they DO have a strong interest in lobbying against weapons, right? 1. Did your math prof teach you anything about the difference between raw data and analysis of data? 2. Did your math prof teach you anything about the use of controls? 3. Why do you claim the FBI is interested in falsifying its data? What evidence do you have that it does this? Quote OOOhh that's impressive! Sad that you are falling back and taking this to a personal level... Anyway I said that to explain where my attitude towards statistics and their use as a proof for somethings come from. And not to boast.... Oh and since you are sooo clever and all knowing. You still might want to read through the below link.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics#Misuse Oh and your third "Point".. Because less guns on the streets poses less of a potential threat for them in their opinion. Edit: damn typos... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #11 January 9, 2008 Please tell us how the FBI is likely to manipulate its reported homicide statistics to get a different answer. Is it pretending that speeding offenses in MI are actually homicides, to make MI look worse? Enquiring minds want to know how they do it. If you're NOT claiming they are falsified, what exactly ARE you claiming?... 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 1,679 #12 January 9, 2008 QuoteNot really, I think CCW is a good think. If you would forbid it, the maniacs will still get guns. So it is in my opinion better to toss out some licenses to people and IF something happens, they can act. QuoteIn September, a 36-year-old Troy man killed an armed 18-year-old assailant who, with three other suspects, attempted to steal his car outside Detroit Police headquarters. This speaks for itself I would say. . It's funny that you take the claims of this article at face value, when it cites no sources for its claims, uses no control group for comparison, and quotes a guy who writes reviews of his own articles masquerading as a female. Yet you take issue with the data quoted on the FBI's web site using a clearly defined and accepted methodology because, you claim without any proof, the FBI has a bias against guns.... 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
KelliJ 0 #13 January 9, 2008 Since you want to get technical then we can't trust the stats you show from the FBI. After all, you didn't show how those stats were collected, who did the work, what standards they used in defining a violent crime vs a non-violent crime, etc. I'm glad to hear you have no problem with honest citizens carrying concealed weapons. My only remaining question is why, it seems, every time someone starts a thread about CCW you post negative replies? Maybe I missed some positive ones so I may be wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #14 January 9, 2008 FBI website QuoteEach year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents. QuoteHistorically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by many disciplines. Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are: * Population density and degree of urbanization. * Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration. * Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors. * Modes of transportation and highway system. * Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability. * Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. * Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. * Climate. * Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. * Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement. * Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational). * Citizens' attitudes toward crime. * Crime reporting practices of the citizenry. The FBI points to a lot of factors. The ones that I believe in are poverty and gangs (youth criminal organizations). Further facts from 2006 (same FBI source) Chicago is very similar to Houston on population numbers, but quite different in gun policy. Chicago 2,857,796 201 Houston 2,073,729 202 In fact, Arlington, Tx 373,086 just 2 1 out of 186K Rockford, Il ? 153,738 10 1 out of 15K You are over 10 times safer in Texas than Illinois ...according to the statistics. Of course, we don't know the facts. The two people in Arlington could have been stabbed. Perhaps the Texas gun ownership reduced the number of murders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 January 9, 2008 Quote Depends who you believe. DATA from TABLE 5, FBI UCR Michigan violent crime rate per 100,000 2000 2001 2006 555.0 554.7 562.4 Change 2000 to 2006, +1.3% For comparison, Illinois 2000 2001 2006 656.8 639.6 541.6 Change 2000 to 2006, -17% So it seems that Illinois, which has no CCW permits, experienced a much greater drop in violent crime over the 6 year period than Michigan. (Note, FBI UCR data for 2007 are not yet available) For HOMICIDES and non-negligent manslaughter Michigan rates 2000 2006 % change 6.7 7.1 +6.0 Illinois rates 2000 2006 % change 7.2 6.1 -15.3 Speaks for itself, I'd say. Just like the scatter chart, perhaps? That would actually be GOOD, if Illinois actually had all the violent crime reported in that table. Their reporting is spotty at best, especially looking at Table 8 (at least the rapes are reported accurately there).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #16 January 9, 2008 QuoteI'm glad to hear you have no problem with honest citizens carrying concealed weapons. My only remaining question is why, it seems, every time someone starts a thread about CCW you post negative replies? Maybe I missed some positive ones so I may be wrong. He's yanking your chain, have no doubts. As for the 'statistics,' the question you have not asked him involves the use of 2006 and not listing 2005 and 2007 (which should be available shortly). In short, Chicago had a good year in 2006 and he's been milking it down to the nub since. It's premature to declare it a valid trend and not an outlyer, but he's been happy to use it as the end point in a 2 point line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #17 January 9, 2008 Quote Chicago is very similar to Houston on population numbers, but quite different in gun policy. Chicago 2,857,796 201 = 7.0 per 100,000 Houston 2,073,729 202 = 9.7 per 100,000 Seems that Houston tops Chicago by 38% in homicides. Thanks for pointing that out, Bill.... 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
nerdgirl 0 #18 January 9, 2008 Alternative headline in Subject line. Detroit’s population fell below 1M in 2000; have to go back to the 1920’s to get below 1M. What’s the geographical distribution of CCW holders? Once one leaves the Detroit metro and I-94 corridor (across far southern Michigan), populations density drops severely. Rural Michigan has a strong sportsman-associated gun culture. Correlation or causation? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #19 January 9, 2008 Quote As for the 'statistics,' the question you have not asked him involves the use of 2006 and not listing 2005 and 2007 2007 are not available yet.2005 comparisons: Rates per 100,000 per FBI UCR Table 5 Illinois homicides 6.0 Violent crime 551 Michigan homicides 6.1 Violent crime 552 Illinois STILL has a greater decline in both categories than Michigan since MI's CCW law went into effect. Now, you were saying?... 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 1,679 #20 January 9, 2008 Quote That would actually be GOOD, if Illinois actually had all the violent crime reported in that table. ). Gee Mike, in that other thread you were going on and on about how important it is to use the FBI UCR data. Now it's rubbish when it refutes your position. Make up your mind, will you.... 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 #21 January 9, 2008 QuoteQuote Chicago is very similar to Houston on population numbers, but quite different in gun policy. Chicago 2,857,796 201 = 7.0 per 100,000 Houston 2,073,729 202 = 9.7 per 100,000 Seems that Houston tops Chicago by 38% in homicides. Thanks for pointing that out, Bill. And you think this proves...what?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 January 9, 2008 Quote Quote That would actually be GOOD, if Illinois actually had all the violent crime reported in that table. ). Gee Mike, in that other thread you were going on and on about how important it is to use the FBI UCR data. Now it's rubbish when it refutes your position. Make up your mind, will you. Funny, you seem to do that exact same thing... does a certain scatter chart and UCR data come to mind? From the UCR data itself: "2 Limited data for 2006 were available for Illinois. See Data Declaration. 3 The data collection methodology for the offense of forcible rape used by the Illinois (with the exception of Rockford, Illinois) and the Minnesota state UCR Programs do not comply with national UCR guidelines. Consequently, their figures for forcible rape (with the exception of Rockford, Illinois) have been estimated for inclusion in this table. Table 8, Offenses Known to Law Enforcement, provides the reported female forcible rape crime figure. " For the record, though, I was unaware that there were only 7 cities in Illinois... (table 8). Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #23 January 9, 2008 You mean the Professor is trolling??? He wouldn't do that....would he? I'm pretty familiar with how statistics can be manipulated to show only what the presenter wants shown. I learned much of it from working on a political campaign and was assigned exactly that task. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #24 January 9, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Chicago is very similar to Houston on population numbers, but quite different in gun policy. Chicago 2,857,796 201 = 7.0 per 100,000 Houston 2,073,729 202 = 9.7 per 100,000 Seems that Houston tops Chicago by 38% in homicides. Thanks for pointing that out, Bill. And you think this proves...what? Beats me - ask Bill, he brought Houston vs Chicago into the thread. Maybe it means more guns = more crime. Maybe it means people in Houston are just 38% nastier than Chicagoans. Of course, Dallas, TX, at 15.0 homicides per 100,000 and 1206 violent crimes per 100k has a population 50% nastier than Houston and more than twice as nasty as Chicagoans. Yep, I bet that's what it is. Texans are just plain nasty... 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 1,679 #25 January 9, 2008 Quote For the record, though, I was unaware that there were only 7 cities in Illinois... (table 8). Oh, so you've finally found out why you can't use Table 8 to compare states (like you tried to do in that other thread and got hopelessly wrong answers for Maryland) and have to use table 5 instead. You're getting better.... 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
