Thanatos340 1 #26 December 30, 2009 The Link Kallend posted separated Violent Crime and then Property Crime. DC had a MUCH higher Violent Crime rate. Dallas had a Much Higher Property Crime rate. I also wonder if property crime rate has to do with "Reported" Property crimes vs Actual Property Crimes? I can see how people in DC would be less likely to report property Crimes. Also I would suspect that poverty levels (Being much higher in DC) have more to do with these figures than anything else. People living very bad areas such as the projects in DC are not generally going to report Property crimes as they tend to avoid any contact with police if possible. Violent Crime is much more likely to be reported.\ Edited to correct spelling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #27 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuote If Dallas and DC are the same despite wildly different laws on guns, that may suggest that guns are not a factor. Did you click on the link? It opened a page showing that Dallas has a crime rate 29.5% higher than Washington, D.C. That doesn't sound like they're the same. And it shows that DC has a 21% higher Violent Crime Rate than Dallas. Edit: And close to a 100% higher Murder Rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #28 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuotehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/man-unloads-58-guns-at-compton-weapons-exchange-event.html According to the local police, fewer crimes are committed with fewer guns on the streets. Hmmm. Actually, what drives us crazy is your tendency to make questionable conclusions from news reports like this. Imo, it’s as problematical as when the 'other side' claims presence of guns cause reductions in crime. Problematic on multiple levels from cherry-picking data … sometimes things correlate and sometimes they don’t, and beyond correlations, there are even fewer causative explanations. There are a few causative hypotheses from both sides, none of which has been successfully validated afaik … maybe someone can provide such example? From my perspective – owned entirely as my own – it’s a problematic argument regardless. I understand why both ‘sides’ want to claim their perspective/position correlates to lower crime. It was alluded to above: such claims make good sound bites and talking points. Public safety is an economic and societal good. E.g. on an illustrative macro level, compare investment potential of top 25 GDP countries versus bottom 25 versus per capita homicide (as one measure). Curious what the ratio of foreign direct investing in the bottom 25 GDP is to the top 25 GDP? So it’s not completely for oratorical satiation of the masses. If something is a policy choice that benefits societal & economical well-being of a nation-state than justification based on effectiveness & outcomes is a reasonable metric. One for which I would advocate. If something is a right then it should not need justification based on policy effectiveness. While I completely understand pragmatically why both ‘sides’ want to claim their perspective/position correlates to lower crime, that stance ultimately implicitly undermines the argument that something is a right by asserting that there needs to be a policy effectiveness. If something is a right, one doesn’t need to demonstrate effectiveness. Does that make sense? It’s a different way of looking at the issue. /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
nerdgirl 0 #29 December 30, 2009 Quote With all these recent Gun threads posted from both sides, Has ANYONE changed their Opinion? While not from the exchanges of the last few weeks, I have thought a lot more about the general issue and hold more strongly my belief because I have thought about it more intentionally. Some of us, many I bet, grew up associating guns with an out-of-doors/sportsman lifestyle not presence or absence of crime nor as a defensive weapon. I've appreciated more fully others' arguments. I've appreciated more fully a wider perspective. I've observed the thought processes that underly some opinions ... & sometimes I'm still trying to figure it out ... I've learned about underlying arguments that make me respect more the stance of the proponents or adherants. I have become more convinced that neither side's argument that absence or presence of guns correlates to reduced or increased crime in the developed world has validity. It's not the independent variable. I've had some great conversations in PMs and emails that have changed my perspectives and opinions. Of all the arguments put forth on this list -- & this is the only one that regularly debates guns -- that I’ve read over the last few years in the gun threads, the most effective, imo, came from [Rookie120]. He posted a link to a video in fall 2007(?) that featured a calm, non-condescending, non-belittling, reasonably-dressed (i.e., didn’t look like a proverbial poster child for the ‘Michigan militia’), former police-officer from California (IIRC) who demonstrated visually how difficult (one might assert meaningless) categorizing guns as “assault weapons” based on visual appearance is. /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
Thanatos340 1 #30 December 30, 2009 Quote Of all the arguments put forth on this list -- & this is the only one that regularly debates guns -- that I’ve read over the last few years in the gun threads, the most effective, imo, came from [Rookie120]. He posted a link to a video in fall 2007(?) that featured a calm, non-condescending, non-belittling, reasonably-dressed (i.e., didn’t look like a proverbial poster child for the ‘Michigan militia’), former police-officer from California (IIRC) who demonstrated visually how difficult (one might assert meaningless) categorizing guns as “assault weapons” based on visual appearance is. I think this is the link you are referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0 Informative Video. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 December 30, 2009 QuoteWith all these recent Gun threads posted from both sides, Has ANYONE changed their Opinion? I used to be strongly opposed to any sort of gun control, but some of the pro-gun posts I've read have caused me to question that position.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuote Actually, what drives us crazy is your tendency to make questionable conclusions from news reports like this. Imo, it’s as problematical as when the 'other side' claims presence of guns cause reductions in crime. Given a choice of two sets of lies/false conclusions/innocent misunderstanding, I prefer the one that supports a right rather than the one used to try to take away a right. And the gun control movement is often not shy about admitting to any tactic, any lie, in order to achieve their policy wish. I think for many, the battle has shifted to concealed carry, where the claims of possible effects on crime become more significant for each side. But that said, there are still tens of millions who have essentially no 2nd Amendment rights and this will remain true until Heller runs over them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 27 #33 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhich, of course, is why DC has such a LOW crime rate. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=washington+dc+crime+rate+vs+dallas Excuse me . . . you were saying? I was saying that, per 2008 UCR stats, DC has a violent crime rate of 1374.5/100k vs. Dallas with a rate of 894.8/100k - what were YOU trying to say before you blocked it with your foot? Actually, no. You said crime rate, not violent crime rate. Easy to say one thing and then claim another after. I was unaware of the effect of guns on property crime - if you have such proof, then please provide it. I never said one set of number was more relevant than another. You are the one who initially mentioned crime rate, not violent crime rates.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #34 December 30, 2009 QuoteWith all these recent Gun threads posted from both sides, Has ANYONE changed their Opinion? Yes. Before I was under impression that most gun owners are reasonable, and it is just Brady types who are full of themselves, have no idea what they're talking about, and have no problems to lie, cheat or cherry-pick facts as long as it fits their agenda. Now I'm pretty much sure that both sides are equally full of themselves, have no idea what they're talking about, and have no problems to lie, cheat or cherry-pick facts as long as it fits their agenda.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #35 December 30, 2009 QuoteI used to be strongly opposed to any sort of gun control, but some of the pro-gun posts I've read have caused me to question that position. Exactly.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #36 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/man-unloads-58-guns-at-compton-weapons-exchange-event.html I wonder if the reported actions are a leading or trailing indicator related to crime? Or related to perceptions regarding positive policing? I.e., greater confidence in policing, such as via increased community policing. There’s a “growing consensus” that it does work, although I suspect most scholars acknowledge that because there are so many variables, absolute determinations are hard to reach. I suspect it’s trailing. Like the observations w/r/t crime & rain, it suggests that there may be a correlation. Doesn't show causation. To me, the leading versus trailing piece is the more interesting underlying part of the story … ymmv. /Marg While correlation does not show causation in one direction, it's very strong evidence against causation in the opposite direction. There is good correlation between handgun purchasing and subsequently being shot dead (American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, Issue 6 974-978). Doesn't imply causation, but it makes it difficult to claim that buying a gun makes you safer, or that being shot dead causes one to go out and buy a gun). Which, of course, is why DC has such a LOW crime rate. Poor logic AGAIN. DC residents only have to take a short stroll across a bridge to buy a gun. To conclude anything relevant from your statement you need to show that DC residents don't buy guns ANYWHERE.... 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 #37 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/man-unloads-58-guns-at-compton-weapons-exchange-event.html I wonder if the reported actions are a leading or trailing indicator related to crime? Or related to perceptions regarding positive policing? I.e., greater confidence in policing, such as via increased community policing. There’s a “growing consensus” that it does work, although I suspect most scholars acknowledge that because there are so many variables, absolute determinations are hard to reach. I suspect it’s trailing. Like the observations w/r/t crime & rain, it suggests that there may be a correlation. Doesn't show causation. To me, the leading versus trailing piece is the more interesting underlying part of the story … ymmv. /Marg While correlation does not show causation in one direction, it's very strong evidence against causation in the opposite direction. There is good correlation between handgun purchasing and subsequently being shot dead (American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, Issue 6 974-978). Doesn't imply causation, but it makes it difficult to claim that buying a gun makes you safer, or that being shot dead causes one to go out and buy a gun). Which, of course, is why DC has such a LOW crime rate. Poor logic AGAIN. DC residents only have to take a short stroll across a bridge to buy a gun. To conclude anything relevant from your statement you need to show that DC residents don't buy guns ANYWHERE. Ah, the "Virginia guns cause DC crime" bullshit again - how about if you PROVE that, first?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 #38 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/man-unloads-58-guns-at-compton-weapons-exchange-event.html I wonder if the reported actions are a leading or trailing indicator related to crime? Or related to perceptions regarding positive policing? I.e., greater confidence in policing, such as via increased community policing. There’s a “growing consensus” that it does work, although I suspect most scholars acknowledge that because there are so many variables, absolute determinations are hard to reach. I suspect it’s trailing. Like the observations w/r/t crime & rain, it suggests that there may be a correlation. Doesn't show causation. To me, the leading versus trailing piece is the more interesting underlying part of the story … ymmv. /Marg While correlation does not show causation in one direction, it's very strong evidence against causation in the opposite direction. There is good correlation between handgun purchasing and subsequently being shot dead (American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, Issue 6 974-978). Doesn't imply causation, but it makes it difficult to claim that buying a gun makes you safer, or that being shot dead causes one to go out and buy a gun). Which, of course, is why DC has such a LOW crime rate. Poor logic AGAIN. DC residents only have to take a short stroll across a bridge to buy a gun. To conclude anything relevant from your statement you need to show that DC residents don't buy guns ANYWHERE. Ah, the "Virginia guns cause DC crime" bullshit again - how about if you PROVE that, first? Are you now claiming that no gun bought legally in VA ever ended up in DC? Bit of a stretch there, even for 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 #39 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteAh, the "Virginia guns cause DC crime" bullshit again - how about if you PROVE that, first? Are you now claiming that no gun bought legally in VA ever ended up in DC? Bit of a stretch there, even for you. Nope - like most of your 'arguments', that's YOUR invention.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #40 December 30, 2009 QuoteDoesn't imply causation, but it makes it difficult to claim that buying a gun makes you safer, or that being shot dead causes one to go out and buy a gun). Though it could imply that being in a situation where you might be shot dead might make you want to go buy a gun. Mere ownership of that weapon does not make you safer. Just like owning a car doesn't mean you know how to drive it or having a baby means you know how to parent.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #41 December 30, 2009 Quote That would, of course, require that the original owner had registered the gun or reported its theft along with its SN in the first place. For some reason the gun lobby doesn't like the authorities having access to this information. The authorities ask the manufacturer who they sold gun XXXXX to. That FFL then has a file of all the ownership transfers that they access to see who that weapon was sold to. The authorities have access to the data based on the serial number, not the name.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #42 December 30, 2009 QuoteAre you now claiming that no gun bought legally in VA ever ended up in DC? No GUN ever committed a Crime no matter where it came from. Cities that have banned guns have a higher violent crime rate than those that have not banned guns. True? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #43 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuote Of all the arguments put forth on this list -- & this is the only one that regularly debates guns -- that I’ve read over the last few years in the gun threads, the most effective, imo, came from [Rookie120]. He posted a link to a video in fall 2007(?) that featured a calm, non-condescending, non-belittling, reasonably-dressed (i.e., didn’t look like a proverbial poster child for the ‘Michigan militia’), former police-officer from California (IIRC) who demonstrated visually how difficult (one might assert meaningless) categorizing guns as “assault weapons” based on visual appearance is. I think this is the link you are referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0 Informative Video. Thanks. Yes, it was. /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
rhaig 0 #44 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhich, of course, is why DC has such a LOW crime rate. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=washington+dc+crime+rate+vs+dallas Excuse me . . . you were saying? here... added one word to that search for you http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=washington+dc+violent+crime+rate+vs+dallas I won't speak for others, but my position has always been that guns deter violent crime. the other crimes listed in your URL (larceny, burglary, vehicle theft, property crimes) are committed when there is nobody present (thus the presence of a gun won't deter that crime). So I prefer to compare violent crime rates. After all, I'm not going to use my handgun to prevent someone from stealing my stuff, if I'm not there. Hell, I'd let them have it even if I saw them taking it. It's stuff. I have too much of it as it is.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteAre you now claiming that no gun bought legally in VA ever ended up in DC? No GUN ever committed a Crime no matter where it came from. Cities that have banned guns have a higher violent crime rate than those that have not banned guns. True? Not in all cases. F'rinstance (2008 stats), St. Louis, MO has the highest violent crime rate at 2072/100k, closely followed by Oakland, CA at 1968/100k and Memphis, TN at 1925/100k. Detriot, MI (1924/100k) and Baltimore, MD (1588/100k) round out the top 5. It really *IS* about the criminals and not the tools they use - something you NEVER see the gun-banners admit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAh, the "Virginia guns cause DC crime" bullshit again - how about if you PROVE that, first? Are you now claiming that no gun bought legally in VA ever ended up in DC? Bit of a stretch there, even for you. Nope - like most of your 'arguments', that's YOUR invention. You're getting pretty good at playing his game. Expect some 'rule changes' soon, however. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #47 December 31, 2009 "legal" owners *** +1 This is the part that they will never understand and we cannot convince them of. The criminals will get guns because they do not care about laws, it merely disarms the law abiding people. the old saying goes - when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns, guess which camp I will be in at that point. RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #48 December 31, 2009 QuoteAccording to the local police, fewer crimes are committed with fewer guns on the streets. Hmmm. Well.....#1 the article does not say that anywhere. It says THOSE guns are off the street. But, this report say's that crime rates are DOWN http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/index.html QuoteFor Release December 21, 2009 Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 4.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first six months of 2009 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2008. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2009 decreased 6.1 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2008. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2009 indicate that arson decreased 8.2 percent when compared to 2008 figures from the same time period. AND The number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS' inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in 2008. So more guns have been bought and more guns are in existence, and crime rates are DOWN. Hmmmmmm."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #49 December 31, 2009 QuoteI used to be strongly opposed to any sort of gun control, but some of the pro-gun posts I've read have caused me to question that position. Which shocks me some.... You of all people I would think would support the right of the individual to choose what they want. I always thought you were for more individual freedom, not less."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #50 December 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteAccording to the local police, fewer crimes are committed with fewer guns on the streets. Hmmm. Well.....#1 the article does not say that anywhere. It says THOSE guns are off the street. But, this report say's that crime rates are DOWN http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/index.html QuoteFor Release December 21, 2009 Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 4.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first six months of 2009 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2008. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2009 decreased 6.1 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2008. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2009 indicate that arson decreased 8.2 percent when compared to 2008 figures from the same time period. AND The number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS' inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in 2008. So more guns have been bought and more guns are in existence, and crime rates are DOWN. Hmmmmmm. It was reported today that in Des Moines Iowa the crime rates showed large drops. This happened when no new gun laws were enacted."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
This Site Is For Sale
