Washington, D.C. Banning Guns Again

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thank you, thank you for confirming that Washington DC is indeed an anomalous case and should not be used in comparisons to make a general point.

Incorrect - YOU are saying that DC is an anomalous case, nobody else is.

I'll quit using DC's numbers when the FBI quit putting them in the database - QED, the US government considers DC as equivalent to a state for crime reporting purposes, at the least.

Quote

Now weve put that to rest maybe we can have a useful discussion.

Maybe you can start the "useful discussion" by showing how Wyoming's high ownership of guns is driving their ASTRONOMICAL murder rate of 1.87/100k.

You could always try reading the (peer reviewed) articles to find the answers to your questions, BEFORE hitting "post". It's all there. Oh, I forgot, you don't trust "*MEDICAL* journals" .

Still can't refute the data, eh professor? Perhaps you can show just WHO 'peer reviews' the FBI data. Or, maybe you can refute how Kellerman's methodology provides a ratio of 99:1 for unarmed households with his own data.

Or (most probable), you can just try to weasel your way out of the discussion with posts like the above without actually having to PROVE anything (as you so often demand of everyone else).

Again...take your time - we'll wait, even though we already KNOW what tactic you'll use.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, it's not, at least, not in any formal sense - what you describe is exactly the type of questions asked by Kleck's survey. I should also note that those type of questions are NOT asked by the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is one of the sources where DOJ gets their numbers from (other surveys submitted by state/county/city police sources is the primary source, in my understanding).

Of course, the FBI/DoJ can justify their data, while Kleck's is simply an (over)estimate, aka guess.

I see - why don't you go ahead and provide the link to where the NCVS asks that exact question, then.

I'll wait.

Ask yourself why they don't ask that sort of question.

Here's a hint:

Dr. David Hemenway, a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, dissected the work
of Kleck and Gertz in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, concluding that their survey
contained ”a huge overestimation bias” and that their estimate is “highly exaggerated.”
Hemenway applied Kleck and Gertz’s methodology to a 1994 ABC News/Washington Post
survey in which people were asked if they had ever seen an alien spacecraft or come into direct
contact with a space alien. He demonstrated that, by the application of Kleck and Gertz’s
methodology, one would conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen a spacecraft
from another planet and more than a million have actually met space aliens.



So much for your heroes. Lott impersonates a woman, Kleck uses a statistical method that proves a million+ American have met space aliens.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,436]

Both of you - enough.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Oh, a comedian. Can't dispute what I wrote so you quibble about grammar. Anyway, please checkyour post, the one in which YOU redundantly inserted "fatally" into my sentence (and split the infinitive). My sentence that does not include the redundant word. The same one in which you wrote:

There's no redundency. Being shot does not equal being killed. There are far more than 170 criminals that were justifiably shot, but not killed, thus making your 4:1 ratio claim a lie. Since we know how upset you get at being called a liar, let's fix the claim and insert the necessary modifier "fatally" to maintain the truthiness.

If you used this same level of imprecise language to physics as you do to these gun threads, we'd have another mars or venus lander failure.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Both of you - enough.

Thank You!

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

[timidly attempting an on-topic post][]

The instant situation in DC is just one of the cases resulting from the Heller decision that will go through the court system. There will be many lawsuits. It will take a long time for things to get sorted out, if ever.

Re the poll, my opinion is that semiauto handguns fall well within the (perhaps murky) bounds set by Heller. FWIW, I feel the same way about Machine Guns.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Being afraid of guns is stupid. Being afraid of guns AND trying to use your fear to remove others constitutional rights is no different.

Careful now....you are sounding like a liberal. After all that is the line of rational, logical thinking we have been using all along.

Now replace guns with just about anything else lawmakers try to ban....you know, those personal pet peeves like video games, gay marriage, net neutrality, tv shows, vulgar language, nudity, etc.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Both of you - enough.

Thank You!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

The fact that these states want to ban such guns, is proof that not all american think the second ammendment is a good idea.

the speakers corner is usually filled with gun tot'n folk that aint got nuthin better to do than shoot some thunder sticks for some good ol fashin fun.




so the poll will not reflect the real opinion of all americans.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The fact that these states want to ban such guns, is proof that not all american think the second ammendment is a good idea.

the speakers corner is usually filled with. gun tot'n folk that aint got nuthin better to do than shoot some thunder sticks for some good ol fashin fun.




so the poll will not reflect the real opinion of all americans.

In your opinion, of course.

The problem is, while the pro-2nd people recognize the fact that not everyone cares to own a gun, a large number of anti-2nd folks think that nobody (except police and military) should be able to own one. That is the stated endpoint of groups like VPC and others, as well as their adherents in Congress.

Hopefully, the recent Heller decision will take some of the wind from their sails.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[happythoughts 0]

Chicago's death rate is up 13% over last year and rising.

The solution that has worked in LA was to stop gangs.
When New Orleans gangs moved to Atlanta after Katrina, violence grew as gangs fought.
Chicago violence problem

Quote

Chicago in the lead for Murder Capital 2008

* added April 22, 2008

In a city where there has been a hand-gun ban on the books since the early 80's, shootings are on the rise again. Not since 2003 has Chicago held the ugly title of Murder Capital (not per capita either), with the recent outburst of gun violence this past weekend in Chicago, it looks like they are in the running again for the title of Murder Capital in 2008.

CHICAGO (WLS) -- At least 37 people were shot in Chicago over the weekend. Eight of the shootings were fatal.

Quote

One gang expert in Chicago says that it is not just a matter of getting additional gun legislation, but also addressing the bigger problem of resolving poverty, especially in some of the most oppressed communities of the city. He said that one of the important things is to address these concerns, such as housing, displacement of residents. This displacement has, in his words, led to conflicts between gangs that used to be living in different areas. Now as they come together, conflict erupts over turf as these people try to compete for their business.

Criminologist and author John Hagedorn also went on to comparing the city of Chicago to the city of New York, which had one-third the homicide rate of Chicago last year. The reason for this, he said, is because the gangs are more entrenched here and therefore it is harder to fight

Even though there has been a sharp decrease in homicides and other gun-related violence from 10 years ago, the fact remains Chicago last year had 443 homicides, New York had 496, but New York has three times the population, which effectively means Chicago has three times the murder rate.

If the possession of guns were the problem, Switzerland would be leading the world. The problem is criminals.

[mnealtx 0]

Your quoted news piece seems to support the thread that I made a week or two ago about correlation between crime patterns and movement of people from the inner cities.

As you say, "the problem is criminals".

I guess I'll just start posting the guncam® again when the antis try to argue otherwise...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

rhys: The fact that these states want to ban such guns, is proof that not all american think the second ammendment is a good idea.

Many states have bans on gay marriage too. Good idea, right? Sorry, rights don't work that way.

Quote

The problem is, while the pro-2nd people recognize the fact that not everyone cares to own a gun, a large number of anti-2nd folks think that nobody (except police and military) should be able to own one.

you forgot celebrities and other VIPs.

[kallend 1,651]

reply removed in the light of Billvon's request.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Oh, a comedian. Can't dispute what I wrote so you quibble about grammar. Anyway, please checkyour post, the one in which YOU redundantly inserted "fatally" into my sentence (and split the infinitive). My sentence that does not include the redundant word. The same one in which you wrote:

There's no redundency. Being shot does not equal being killed. There are far more than 170 criminals that were justifiably shot, but not killed, thus making your 4:1 ratio claim a lie. Since we know how upset you get at being called a liar, let's fix the claim and insert the necessary modifier "fatally" to maintain the truthiness.

If you used this same level of imprecise language to physics as you do to these gun threads, we'd have another mars or venus lander failure.

I wrote "shot dead". You removed "dead" and added "fatally". If all you can nitpick is the language I used, I guess you have no case.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I wrote "shot dead". You removed "dead" and added "fatally". If all you can nitpick is the language I used, I guess you have no case.

Pretty rich from the king of nitpicks. And a lie, or a very poor recollection of the facts.

Post 91, you introduced this factoid and misstated it:
"So apparently you are over 4 times as likely to be shot dead accidentally as to shoot a felon. "

In post 103, I rephrased it more accurately by inserting the word "fatally" as appropriate.
"You're 4 times more like to be shot dead accidentally as to fatally shoot a felon."

I did not remove "dead." There are insignificant changes in the opening. It probably should have been left with the 'apparently' to give you your wiggle room, but that's all. There's no doubt you're comparing fatal accidents to mere shootings, which can be both fatal and nonfatal. All that is implied is the felon is struck by the bullet.

If you're gonna nitpick, you better review your posts.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Being afraid of guns is stupid. Being afraid of guns AND trying to use your fear to remove others constitutional rights is no different.

Careful now....you are sounding like a liberal. After all that is the line of rational, logical thinking we have been using all along.

Now replace guns with just about anything else lawmakers try to ban....you know, those personal pet peeves like video games, gay marriage, net neutrality, tv shows, vulgar language, nudity, etc.

and let us not forget, what food we should eat, whether we can smoke a legal substance, who we might go to for health care, whether or not we wear helmets on a motocycle, what the milage should be on the car I buy, controling the polutant CO2, whether I can own a gun,

And, I could take some of your example and turn them on you if you think about it.

How about attacks on free speach? McCain Feingold and consider the following
http://www.capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=11596541&type=CO
And a right wing org is trying to STOP this law (as well as others I am sure)

The so called Fairness Doctrine is another ugly example.

Hope the fall off the high road was painless.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,651]

What part of "justifiable shooting homicides" don't you understand?

And while nitpicking language, you wrote "You're 4 times more like to be shot dead accidentally as to fatally shoot a felon." So who likes to be shot dead? Talk about people in glass houses throwing stones.

The 4x ratio comes from data. You quibble with it, but your quibbling is based on speculation and guessing. Rather like Kleck's numbers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Professor, for the umpteenth time, what use is that study at all. Why is it that accidental shootings count (the against ownership side of his argument) but only fatal shootings of criminals count (the side giving credence to self defense ownership)?

Why not count shootings that wound? Shootings that miss but send the criminal running? Brandishing (without a shot) that sends the criminal running? Why wouldn't he include those numbers? Could it be that including all uses of self defense would outweigh the accidental deaths? Face up to it, the man had an agenda. He knew what he wanted his study to show, and he found a way to make the number show it.

As for the way you try to piss all over Kleck and his study, you should recognize two facts:

First: As I have pointed out to you many times before, studies have varied in their numbers, but consistently show amazing numbers of defensive gun uses every year. The lowest I can think of was 700,000. The highest is in the area of 3,600,000. The most wide praised and accepted is approximately 2.16 million.

Cook-Ludwig (Clinton DOJ)
Field
Bordua
Cambridge
Hart
Mausaer
Gallup
LATimes
Tarrance

Go ahead, check the names, see what you find. Most importantly, see what an anti-gun researcher with some self-respect had to say about the Kleck-Gertz study. Marvin Wolfgang
The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:
It was in the same issue as the Kleck-Gertz study.

Second: He wrote Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, which won the 1993 Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology. This award is presented for the book of the previous several years which "made the most outstanding contribution to criminology." Let me know if Kellerman ever received an award like that related to crime, sociology, firearms, or any relevant field.

The last time I remember a researcher who had his conclusions before doing firearms crime work was Michael A. Bellesiles, author of Arming America, one of the most discredited books in America, and which caused him to lose his job at a university and have his awards revoked. Friend of yours?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Hope the fall off the high road was painless.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention if you think I make my choices along something as inane as a party line.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Hope the fall off the high road was painless.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention if you think I make my choices along something as inane as a party line.

Your typed the responce I replied to. I only pointed out that what you posted cant be hung on one party.

Indeed, the nanny state comes more from the left IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

KLECK!!!!

His data has been debunked by none other than the US DoJ.

Do tell. I can't wait to see this one.

Quote

And since gunshot victims are treated or pronounced dead by the medical profession, seems like gunshot deaths and injuries are fair game for medical journals. Suggesting that epidemiologists are poor statisticians just displays amazing ignorance.

No, that makes them qualified to comment on treating gun shots, not on policy to prevent gunshots. Leave discussions of how and why of gunshots to peer reviewed journals that focus on criminology. You know, like the one in which Kleck-Gertz were published in 1995.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 1,651]

Epidemiology is part of the medical profession.


Dr. David Hemenway, a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, dissected the work
of Kleck and Gertz in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, concluding that their survey
contained ”a huge overestimation bias” and that their estimate is “highly exaggerated.”
Hemenway applied Kleck and Gertz’s methodology to a 1994 ABC News/Washington Post
survey in which people were asked if they had ever seen an alien spacecraft or come into direct
contact with a space alien. He demonstrated that, by the application of Kleck and Gertz’s
methodology, one would conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen a spacecraft
from another planet and more than a million have actually met space aliens.

So, kennedy, have you seen any space aliens recently?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The 4x ratio comes from data. You quibble with it, but your quibbling is based on speculation and guessing. Rather like Kleck's numbers.

No, my quibble is with your poor writing, and then your refusal to admit it, and the lame attempt to rewrite history.

I gave the 4x ratio as pass as plausible, and then told you why it didn't matter.