mnealtx 0 #51 January 11, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Are you next going to claim that Chicago has no street gangs or drugs? *rolls eyes* That's even worse than your usual unfounded claims about guns causing crime... That's YOUR strawman. Guns in the wrong hands enable worse crimes. My strawman? Who posted about Chicago being safer than Dallas, up-thread? Doing so in a gun thread implies that Chicago is safer due to the gun ban. BTW - (since we're talking about cities) have you seen the murder stats for Washington city? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #52 January 11, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Are you next going to claim that Chicago has no street gangs or drugs? *rolls eyes* That's even worse than your usual unfounded claims about guns causing crime... That's YOUR strawman. Guns in the wrong hands enable worse crimes. My strawman? Who posted about Chicago being safer than Dallas, up-thread? Doing so in a gun thread implies that Chicago is safer due to the gun ban. BTW - (since we're talking about cities) have you seen the murder stats for Washington city? Yes, it's tough being a short hike from an almost unlimited source of 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
kallend 1,853 #53 January 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you next going to claim that Chicago has no street gangs or drugs? *rolls eyes* That's even worse than your usual unfounded claims about guns causing crime... That's YOUR strawman. Guns in the wrong hands enable worse crimes. Agreed. "The wrong hands". The wrong hands of criminals. Criminals cause crime. As Michigan discovered, CCW holders are law-abiding citizens, so the increase of CCW licenses from 25K to 155K (130,000) did not contribute to crime. Interesting, Bill, that the state next door with no CCW had a LARGER decrease in violent crime than CCW blessed Michigan (whose violent crimes and homicides were actually higher in 2006 than in 2000 according to the FBI). Your conclusion is unrelated to the facts. Of course, the FBI could be fibbing.... 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 #54 January 11, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Are you next going to claim that Chicago has no street gangs or drugs? *rolls eyes* That's even worse than your usual unfounded claims about guns causing crime... That's YOUR strawman. Guns in the wrong hands enable worse crimes. My strawman? Who posted about Chicago being safer than Dallas, up-thread? Doing so in a gun thread implies that Chicago is safer due to the gun ban. BTW - (since we're talking about cities) have you seen the murder stats for Washington city? Yes, it's tough being a short hike from an almost unlimited source of guns. Let's see, that would be that "almost unlimited source of guns" (rolls eyes) that *ISN'T* causing a corresponding increase in Virginia, or the ones that are causing all the murders in Wyoming?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #55 January 11, 2008 QuoteQuote Agreed. "The wrong hands". The wrong hands of criminals. Criminals cause crime. As Michigan discovered, CCW holders are law-abiding citizens, so the increase of CCW licenses from 25K to 155K (130,000) did not contribute to crime. Interesting, Bill, that the state next door with no CCW had a LARGER decrease in violent crime than CCW blessed Michigan (whose violent crimes and homicides were actually higher in 2006 than in 2000 according to the FBI). Your conclusion is unrelated to the facts. Of course, the FBI could be fibbing. Really? Prove it. I'm really going to enjoy seeing you prove how Michigan's law-abiding CCW holders are responsible for ANYTHING to do with Wisconsin's crime rate.... ESPECIALLY since the point of his post was that CCW holders are NOT contributing to crime. So, please...go ahead. Show us ANYTHING that isn't a knee-jerk anti-gun reaction, Professor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #56 January 11, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Agreed. "The wrong hands". The wrong hands of criminals. Criminals cause crime. As Michigan discovered, CCW holders are law-abiding citizens, so the increase of CCW licenses from 25K to 155K (130,000) did not contribute to crime. Interesting, Bill, that the state next door with no CCW had a LARGER decrease in violent crime than CCW blessed Michigan (whose violent crimes and homicides were actually higher in 2006 than in 2000 according to the FBI). Your conclusion is unrelated to the facts. Of course, the FBI could be fibbing. Really? Prove it. I'm really going to enjoy seeing you prove how Michigan's law-abiding CCW holders are responsible for ANYTHING to do with Wisconsin's crime rate.... ESPECIALLY since the point of his post was that CCW holders are NOT contributing to crime. So, please...go ahead. Show us ANYTHING that isn't a knee-jerk anti-gun reaction, Professor. Who mentioned Wisconsin? And you REALLY should learn something about control groups... 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 #57 January 11, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Agreed. "The wrong hands". The wrong hands of criminals. Criminals cause crime. As Michigan discovered, CCW holders are law-abiding citizens, so the increase of CCW licenses from 25K to 155K (130,000) did not contribute to crime. Interesting, Bill, that the state next door with no CCW had a LARGER decrease in violent crime than CCW blessed Michigan (whose violent crimes and homicides were actually higher in 2006 than in 2000 according to the FBI). Your conclusion is unrelated to the facts. Of course, the FBI could be fibbing. Really? Prove it. I'm really going to enjoy seeing you prove how Michigan's law-abiding CCW holders are responsible for ANYTHING to do with Wisconsin's crime rate.... ESPECIALLY since the point of his post was that CCW holders are NOT contributing to crime. So, please...go ahead. Show us ANYTHING that isn't a knee-jerk anti-gun reaction, Professor. Who mentioned Wisconsin? And you REALLY should learn something about control groups Whatever state YOU meant, then, Professor. One victim disarmament zone is as good as any other for the criminals, anyway and isn't germane to Michigan's crime rate anyway. Just like your bogus attempts at arguing that it's the guns. As for control groups...why don't you go ahead and show us all how you prove him wrong on this one, Professor. I claimed that Texas CCW holders committed less crime. YOU are inferring that Michigan CCW holders are commiting more crime. Prove it. Oh - and show that 'control group', too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #58 January 12, 2008 Quote Since Chicago is actually quite a lot larger than Houston, the homicide RATE in Houston is IN FACT 38% higher than Chicago's. Population matters or it doesn't ? So there is a correlation on population ? If population matters then why is Rockford IL so much more dangerous than Arlington TX. Arlington has way over twice the population, but only 1/5th the number of murders. Arlington, Tx 373,086 just 2 murders 1 out of 186K Rockford, Il ? 153,738 10 murders 1 out of 15K You are over 10 times safer in Texas than Illinois ...according to the statistics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #59 January 12, 2008 Stats 2000: 628 2001: 666 2002: 647 2003: 598 2004: 448 2005: 449 2006: 452 2007: 435 In 2002, Chicago had a higher per capita murder rate than LA or NY. One of the reasons that the murder rate has been dropping is because it was very high to begin with. Also, the followed the LA and NY program of targeting gangs. Gang violence Study finds that violence related to criminal gangs. QuoteGang Violence Emerges In 2006 As Key Factor In Homicide Resurgence Organized Crime Digest, Dec 29, 2006 The emergence of violent drug and street gangs affecting large and small cities and urban and rural states was a key factor in the reversal of a decade of declining homicide rates. QuoteChicago used a program of concentrating resources on felons and conducting educational sessions for re-entering offenders to instruct them that their criminal history guarantees a return to prison if they are caught with a firearm. Despite the warnings, Chicago Police Department found that nearly half of all murders were gang related and gang retaliation murders increased 9 percent from 2005. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #60 January 12, 2008 Don't expect an answer anytime soon. The Prof. has yet to answer my question as to what the "unfounded allegations" were that I supposedly made. If he feels there are such statements he should let them known. If not, he should correct himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #61 January 12, 2008 QuoteDon't expect an answer anytime soon. The Prof. has yet to answer my question as to what the "unfounded allegations" were that I supposedly made. If he feels there are such statements he should let them known. If not, he should correct himself. Dont hold your breath......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #62 January 12, 2008 Quote In 2002, Chicago had a higher per capita murder rate than LA or NY. One of the reasons that the murder rate has been dropping is because it was very high to begin with. I like your logic, Bill. Michigan's homicide rate drops a tiny bit (actually it's UP again now) and it's all on account of CCW. Chicago's drops much more, and it's because it was high to begin with. Illinois is STILL lower than Michigan in homicide rate, and the rate fell faster. Chicago STILL has a lower homicide rate than Orlando in your back yard, but it was "high to begin with" What does that say about Orlando? (or Dallas, or Houston)?... 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 1,853 #63 January 12, 2008 QuoteDon't expect an answer anytime soon. The Prof. has yet to answer my question as to what the "unfounded allegations" were that I supposedly made. If he feels there are such statements he should let them known. If not, he should correct himself. Quote "Did YOU change it?"... 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
happythoughts 0 #64 January 12, 2008 QuoteI like your logic, Bill. Michigan's homicide rate drops a tiny bit (actually it's UP again now) and it's all on account of CCW. Nope. As I have said earlier, the CCW holders are composed of law-abiding citizens, so they should not have an effect on murder rates. QuoteChicago's drops much more, and it's because it was high to begin with. Illinois is STILL lower than Michigan in homicide rate, and the rate fell faster. Chicago STILL has a lower homicide rate than Orlando in your back yard, but it was "high to begin with"Crazy What does that say about Orlando? (or Dallas, or Houston)? It says exactly what I believe, and the FBI mentions in a disclaimer, that no one should use those charts to statistically infer anything. Chicago reduced their crime rate by following some guidelines provided by LA. They sought to get rid of gangs. Organized groups of criminals are who cause the majority of murders. In LA, about half. According to the FBI page, the major source of crime is poverty. Large cities provide anonymity. My theory on Orlando is that it has no actual employment base. Just a bunch of hotels who employ the working poor. Tourists are easy targets. Camden NJ used to be a big manufacturing area. The manufacturing left and there was no opportunity to work your way out of the poverty. Hopelessness breeds crime. Now Camden is crime-ridden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #65 January 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteI like your logic, Bill. Michigan's homicide rate drops a tiny bit (actually it's UP again now) and it's all on account of CCW. Nope. As I have said earlier, the CCW holders are composed of law-abiding citizens, so they should not have an effect on murder rates. QuoteChicago's drops much more, and it's because it was high to begin with. Illinois is STILL lower than Michigan in homicide rate, and the rate fell faster. Chicago STILL has a lower homicide rate than Orlando in your back yard, but it was "high to begin with"Crazy What does that say about Orlando? (or Dallas, or Houston)? It says exactly what I believe, and the FBI mentions in a disclaimer, that no one should use those charts to statistically infer anything. . The ACTUAL FBI disclaimer is: "the FBI discourages data users from ranking agencies and using the data as a measurement of law enforcement effectiveness. " Not QUITE what you claimed.... 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
happythoughts 0 #66 January 13, 2008 link QuoteCrime in the United States provides a nationwide view of crime based on statistics contributed by local, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies. Population size is the only correlate of crime presented in this publication. Although many of the listed factors equally affect the crime of a particular area, the UCR Program makes no attempt to relate them to the data presented. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, counties, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis on their population coverage or student enrollment. Until data users examine all the variables that affect crime in a town, city, county, state, region, or college or university, they can make no meaningful comparisons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #67 January 13, 2008 Quote Quote Don't expect an answer anytime soon. The Prof. has yet to answer my question as to what the "unfounded allegations" were that I supposedly made. If he feels there are such statements he should let them known. If not, he should correct himself. Quote "Did YOU change it?" LOL!! Talk about LAME!! That was what is known as a question !! Maybe the Professor needs to go back to school and retake English 101. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #68 January 13, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Don't expect an answer anytime soon. The Prof. has yet to answer my question as to what the "unfounded allegations" were that I supposedly made. If he feels there are such statements he should let them known. If not, he should correct himself. Quote "Did YOU change it?" LOL!! Talk about LAME!! That was what is known as a question !! Maybe the Professor needs to go back to school and retake English 101. Lame^2 response. You know perfectly well what you were suggesting, and were too damn idle to check the data source.... 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 #69 January 13, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Don't expect an answer anytime soon. The Prof. has yet to answer my question as to what the "unfounded allegations" were that I supposedly made. If he feels there are such statements he should let them known. If not, he should correct himself. Quote "Did YOU change it?" LOL!! Talk about LAME!! That was what is known as a question !! Maybe the Professor needs to go back to school and retake English 101. Lame^2 response. You know perfectly well what you were suggesting, and were too damn idle to check the data source. With all due respect, Professor, you'd be wise to admit your error and be done with it. This latest response is, as you said, "lame^2". You, of all people, should know not to post responses based on what you think was meant, but rather based only on was exactly was written. I made no allegations, only asked a simple question, one that I even said only you know the answer to. As far as being too damn idle to check a data source, I think the first few posts in this thread show that it was you who was "too damn idle to check a data source" and proceeded directly to condemning the referenced article. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
