102 shot, 15 fatally, in Chicago over July 4 holiday weekend

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So you believe that unless there is one dominant factor that is entirely responsible for an outcome, there can be no other causal relationships at all? Gun legality cannot have any influence on the murder rate unless gun legality is solely responsible for the murder rate?

Sounds very very not smart.

No. That is exactly the point. Kallend suggested that it is that simple; "Chicago legalizes gun ownership in 2013, Illinois allows concealed carry in 2014, and SURPRISE, the rate of shootings goes up in 2016 and 2017 after decades of decline"

Yet, if you look at his next post, "Attached map shows where shootings have occurred in Chicago since July 1.

The big cluster is on the "west side", where there is an ongoing gang war. While most of the victims (and pretty much all the perps) are gang bangers, there are also, unfortunately, some victims who are "collateral damage". The overwhelming majority are young males.

There are also neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens beyond someone failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign."

That contradicts his other post that suggests that the increase is because of the legalization of concealed carry in Chicago. I do not think it is as simple as, "More guns - more gun crime." it is much more complicated than that. According to Kallend, the same gun laws applied to different neighborhoods in Chicago have had dramatically different results. From zero increase to a large increase. Why?

Derek V

[airdvr 197]

You must be new here. You can't ask logical questions like that.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

No. That is exactly the point. Kallend suggested that it is that simple; "Chicago legalizes gun ownership in 2013, Illinois allows concealed carry in 2014, and SURPRISE, the rate of shootings goes up in 2016 and 2017 after decades of decline"

That doesn't mean other factors are not involved. Inferring that is beyond stupid.

Quote

According to Kallend, the same gun laws applied to different neighborhoods in Chicago have had dramatically different results.

Which doesn't negate that making it easier to acquire guns has an effect. Let's look at another concept. Let's say we change the permitted blood alcohol level while driving to .5.

As a result we see people with elevated BACs crash more frequently in New York and Chicago, but we see no increases in some sparsely populated desert county.

Would you still argue that the increased BAC allowance has no impact?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

No. That is exactly the point. Kallend suggested that it is that simple; "Chicago legalizes gun ownership in 2013, Illinois allows concealed carry in 2014, and SURPRISE, the rate of shootings goes up in 2016 and 2017 after decades of decline"

That doesn't mean other factors are not involved. Inferring that is beyond stupid.

I agree, and that is why I called him out on it.

Quote

According to Kallend, the same gun laws applied to different neighborhoods in Chicago have had dramatically different results.

Which doesn't negate that making it easier to acquire guns has an effect. Let's look at another concept. Let's say we change the permitted blood alcohol level while driving to .5.

As a result we see people with elevated BACs crash more frequently in New York and Chicago, but we see no increases in some sparsely populated desert county.

Would you still argue that the increased BAC allowance has no impact?

We are not talking the impact on a city vs. a rural area, not even two different cities. We are taling about 2 neighborhoods within the same city.

According to Kallend, one neighborhood experienced a rise in shootings, another saw no change. He drew the conclusion more guns = more shootings. I do not agree with his conclusion. The evidence points to other causes since the change in the gun laws had no effect on the other neighborhood. Other factors are clearly at play, i.e. a gang war.

Derek V

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

The evidence points to other causes since the change in the gun laws had no effect on the other neighborhood. Other factors are clearly at play, i.e. a gang war.

Same insane argument that since other factors exist, one particular factor has to be excluded.

In my example one factor was certainly the density of traffic. But that doesn't mean that the increased BAC allowance doesn't play a role.

If you make something more widely available it isn't weird the item gets used more often.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Same insane argument that since other factors exist, one particular factor has to be excluded.

In my example one factor was certainly the density of traffic. But that doesn't mean that the increased BAC allowance doesn't play a role.

If you make something more widely available it isn't weird the item gets used more often.

Using your example, if you raised the legal BAC for the entire US and only saw an increase in cities and rural areas remained flat, what conclusion(s) would you draw?

Derek V

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

No. That is exactly the point. Kallend suggested that it is that simple; "Chicago legalizes gun ownership in 2013, Illinois allows concealed carry in 2014, and SURPRISE, the rate of shootings goes up in 2016 and 2017 after decades of decline"

That doesn't mean other factors are not involved. Inferring that is beyond stupid.

I agree, and that is why I called him out on it.

Whine whine whine.

You asked a stupid question. You know it was stupid. Get over yourself.

...

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

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Same insane argument that since other factors exist, one particular factor has to be excluded.

In my example one factor was certainly the density of traffic. But that doesn't mean that the increased BAC allowance doesn't play a role.

If you make something more widely available it isn't weird the item gets used more often.

Using your example, if you raised the legal BAC for the entire US and only saw an increase in cities and rural areas remained flat, what conclusion(s) would you draw?

Derek V

That allowing for higher intoxication while driving leads to more accidents.

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

So you believe that unless there is one dominant factor that is entirely responsible for an outcome, there can be no other causal relationships at all? Gun legality cannot have any influence on the murder rate unless gun legality is solely responsible for the murder rate?

Sounds very very not smart.

No. That is exactly the point. Kallend suggested that it is that simple; "Chicago legalizes gun ownership in 2013, Illinois allows concealed carry in 2014, and SURPRISE, the rate of shootings goes up in 2016 and 2017 after decades of decline"

Yet, if you look at his next post, "Attached map shows where shootings have occurred in Chicago since July 1.

The big cluster is on the "west side", where there is an ongoing gang war. While most of the victims (and pretty much all the perps) are gang bangers, there are also, unfortunately, some victims who are "collateral damage". The overwhelming majority are young males.

There are also neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens beyond someone failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign."

That contradicts his other post that suggests that the increase is because of the legalization of concealed carry in Chicago.

Derek V

NO, it doesn't. Your grasp of logic is tenuous.

Your flawed implicit assumption is that criminals are uniformly distributed. They are not, hence the outcomes will be quite different in different neighborhoods.

And I repeat for the reading impaired: Some 300,000 guns are reported stolen each year by legal gun owners, these guns come, by definition, into the hands of criminals. The actual number is likely to be higher because not all thefts are reported. Gun manufacturers don't sell directly to criminal gangs; just about every illegally possessed gun came into the hands of a criminal at some point from a legal gun owner.

Also according the the DoJ, guns are in the top 4 items stolen in burglaries.

...

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi John,

Quote

assumption that criminals are uniformly distributed. They are not

^^^^^ This.

Even in a much smaller city such as Portland, OR there are neighborhoods that I will not go into after dark.

There are also neighborhoods that I think anyone would be hard pressed to find even one gun/rifle.

Cities are not homogeneous.

Jerry Baumchen

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

That allowing for higher intoxication while driving leads to more accidents.

And completely ignore that it only leads to more accidents in cities and not in rural areas?

Derek V

[billvon 2,396]

His conclusion is the only GENERAL conclusion you can draw.

You could, for example, use your bit of data to claim that people in rural areas are more responsible and don't drink to excess. That might be, but is not supported by the example you gave.

You could use your bit of data to claim that people in rural areas drink even MORE but they have nothing to hit, and so get in fewer accidents. That also might be, but is not supported by the example you gave.

You could use your bit of data to claim that people in rural areas don't drink at all. That also might be true.

But without more data you can't say any of the above with any certainty; any of the above contain a lot of untested assumptions. Which leads back to Jerry's point - cities (and states, and countries) are not homogeneous.

[airdvr 197]

You can't conclude that some areas within the city are more dangerous than others?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[winsor 186]

airdvr

You can't conclude that some areas within the city are more dangerous than others?

Be real! He lives on the South Side which, according to Jim Croce, is the 'baddest part of town.'

[billvon 2,396]

>You can't conclude that some areas within the city are more dangerous than others?

Sure, you can conclude that. But unless you know what all the dangers are, and which kill people. and whether or not people don't get killed on rural roads just because there are fewer people on rural roads to begin with, it's loaded with unfounded assumptions.

[airdvr 197]

Wow. You've heard of Occam's razor?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wmw999 2,121]

Oh, I do think you should just say what you think Occam's Razor confirms for you; it's so much easier than "tricking" someone else into saying it.

Consider, however, that good science consists of trying to disprove, not prove, theories. You can't prove a theory; you can only fail to disprove it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,623]

wmw999

Oh, I do think you should just say what you think Occam's Razor confirms for you; it's so much easier than "tricking" someone else into saying it.

Consider, however, that good science consists of trying to disprove, not prove, theories. You can't prove a theory; you can only fail to disprove it.

Wendy P.

Let's see:

1980s had lots of gun violence in Chicago. The city council enacted a highly restrictive gun law.

Observed outcome - 2 decades of significant reduction in gun violence in Chicago.

2012-2014. Various SCOTUS decisions cause gun restrictions to be eliminated.

Observed outcome - Massive increase in gun violence back to 1980s levels.

One conclusion that CANNOT be drawn is "More guns, less crime".

...

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

[correcceo 0]

kallend

More guns - more gun crime.

Clearly:
http://www.haciendapub.com/sites/default/files/GunOwnershipVCrimeRate.jpg

[correcceo 0]

kallend

1980s had lots of gun violence in Chicago. The city council enacted a highly restrictive gun law.

Observed outcome - 2 decades of significant reduction in gun violence in Chicago.

Nonsense. The handgun ban was in the early 80s. Gun homicide started to rise significantly by the late 80s till it peaked to an all time high in the early 90s.

kallend

2012-2014. Various SCOTUS decisions cause gun restrictions to be eliminated.

Observed outcome - Massive increase in gun violence back to 1980s levels.

Newsweek:
"Chicago’s modern history of gang violence, especially on its West and South sides, goes back to the 1960s. (As bad as 2016 is, the total number of murders will still be well below the over 900 annual murders in the early 1990s.) But over the past year, two things have accelerated the attacks, according to social workers and law enforcement authorities. Budget cuts reduced the number of anti-violence social workers who once cooled the simmering feuds, and a series of deadly police shootings and alleged misconduct by police have torpedoed the relationship between cops and residents.

Over the past 18 months, the drawdown of police and social workers has led to an explosion of violence not seen in almost 20 years"

[airdvr 197]

wmw999

Oh, I do think you should just say what you think Occam's Razor confirms for you; it's so much easier than "tricking" someone else into saying it.

Consider, however, that good science consists of trying to disprove, not prove, theories. You can't prove a theory; you can only fail to disprove it.

Wendy P.

What it means for me? I think the problem is simple; the residents of those neighborhoods don't trust the police. They won't cooperate with investigations so the shooters are rarely charged and even less are convicted. No fear of the court system = no fear.

So, if you aren't going to work with the police you need to find some other way to protect yourself...more guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbKp8OV6F64

The only people who can change this are the ones living there. They talk a good game but don't do much about it. In the video above they talk about "guidance", saying there used to be guidance. Organizations like BLM should be working to provide the guidance. Instead, BLM works towards less cooperation with law enforcement. And the cycle continues...

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,396]

>What it means for me? I think the problem is simple; the residents of those
>neighborhoods don't trust the police. They won't cooperate with investigations . . .

Or they do trust the police and do cooperate with investigations - but there's a lot of crime there.

[airdvr 197]

billvon

>What it means for me? I think the problem is simple; the residents of those
>neighborhoods don't trust the police. They won't cooperate with investigations . . .

Or they do trust the police and do cooperate with investigations - but there's a lot of crime there.

80% of the time the crime never results in indictment. That can only happen when the witnesses won't cooperate.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[normiss 622]

Given the unreliability of witnesses in court proceedings, I'm calling bs on this excuse.
Besides, it's rather difficult to witness anything when you're hiding from gun fire from a moving car.

How do you feel about the non-blacks that were murdered?

[billvon 2,396]

>80% of the time the crime never results in indictment. That can only happen
>when the witnesses won't cooperate.

Or it can happen when the police use illegal methods to arrest and interrogate people. The case is then thrown out; no prosecutor would try to make a case when a cop breaks the law.

=============
Wrongful Assault, Brutality Lawsuits Tarnish Chicago Police Department

June 15, 2012
The Illinois Observer

Last week, the Chicago City Council squeezed taxpayers for $12 million to settle two wrongful arrest lawsuits thanks to police misbehavior, described as “idiotic” by an appellate court, over police mishandling of a March 20, 2003 anti-Iraq War protest.

Chicago is paying $12 million-plus $3.5 million in previous legal costs-to settle the suits, including a federal class-action suit by 900 people arrested during the 2003 protest. All charges against the protesters were dropped.

Has the Chicago Police Department learned anything about wrongful arrests since its 2003 mishandling of the 2003 protest that is costing Chicago taxpayers more than $15 million?

The short answer is: no.

While the city council was busy voting to hand over sacks of Chicago taxpayer money, the Chicago Police Department was being hit last week with three more wrongful arrest and brutality lawsuits that were quietly filed in Chicago federal court. Those suits came on the heels of two other wrongful arrest and brutality federal lawsuits filed in April and May.

That’s five wrongful arrest and brutality federal lawsuits filed against 19 Chicago Police officers in the last 60 days.
===============
From a recent Justice Department report:
===============
We also talked with several individuals who gave credible accounts of being detained by CPD officers for low-level offenses (for example, failure to use a turn signal) or on false pretenses, and then were told that they would not be released until they brought the officers guns. We heard community members refer to this practice as “guns for freedom.” One man told us of an incident that happened within the past few months, in which he was arrested for driving on a suspended license and told by officers that “everything would go away” if he brought the officers two guns. Officers released him on bond and told him he had one week to bring the officers the guns. They warned him that if he did not bring the guns they would put him away “forever.” This person told us of a friend who had a similar experience several years ago. Other individuals with whom we met during community meetings told us similar stories of CPD officers offering to release them from custody if they provided officers with a weapon. A pastor at a Latino church told us that his congregants reported being picked up by CPD officers seeking information regarding guns or drugs, but when they either could not or would not provide such information, the officers removed the congregants’ shoelaces and dropped them off in rival neighborhoods. Another man told us that he saw officers surround his seven-year-old niece seeking information about who sold drugs and which gangs were running in their neighborhood.
================

Do enough of that and you're not going to be able to prosecute for many crimes.