micro 0
kallend 2,146
QuoteWhat does the long term data for shall issue states vs. non shall issue states say vis a vis violent crime stats?
How quickly did violent crime stats decrease when states passed shall issue laws? And for how long has violent crime stats been down in such states after the institution of shall issue laws?
How long has it taken non shall issue states/areas such as Chicago to actually see a significant decrease in violent crime?
Is the current decrease in violent crime in non gun friendly areas such as Chicago, LA, NYC a statistical fluke, considering such areas long term history of high rates of violent crime compared to other shall-issue areas?
Don't you think the same doubts apply when JR trumpets that short term statistics support "more guns = less crime"? I don't recall seeing you post anything questioning his claims.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
Don't you think the same doubts apply when JR trumpets that short term statistics support "more guns = less crime"? I don't recall seeing you post anything questioning his claims.
HEY!
As per the rules of the forum, or debate in general, we only question those things which we don't believe in dammit!
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
micro 0
QuoteQuoteWhat does the long term data for shall issue states vs. non shall issue states say vis a vis violent crime stats?
How quickly did violent crime stats decrease when states passed shall issue laws? And for how long has violent crime stats been down in such states after the institution of shall issue laws?
How long has it taken non shall issue states/areas such as Chicago to actually see a significant decrease in violent crime?
Is the current decrease in violent crime in non gun friendly areas such as Chicago, LA, NYC a statistical fluke, considering such areas long term history of high rates of violent crime compared to other shall-issue areas?
Don't you think the same doubts apply when JR trumpets that short term statistics support "more guns = less crime"? I don't recall seeing you post anything questioning his claims.
You'll see the error in your first statement if you answer my questions.
I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...
QuoteEvery morning when I watch the news before work - pretty much all I here is Katrina Victim this Katrina Victim that - to be quite honest I am getting sick of their shit....yet again FEMA just announced they will pay their living expenses for one more month (til July 31st) - I believe this is their fourth extension....the last time FEMA tried to cut off funds to Katrina Victims - the "victims" filed a class action lawsuit in Houston....enough is enough - get jobs, put your hands back in your pockets and behave yourselves!!! Otherwise get the fuck out!!!!
___________________________________
I understand. I have relatives in Houston and they keep us informed. Hell, here awhile back, they held a job fair. The idea was to get folks working. they offered shuttles and such, a big lunch and plenty of employers looking for help. The fair lasted I think, 2-days. ONE peson showed-up looking for a job! Those hurricane 'victims', stayed in their hotels! We have some of those victims in our town. Same ol' deal. I guess, those folks lived on Govt. money in New Orleans and they are not about to change. There was a bunch of them in one apartment complex here. They wouldn't leave so, the city condemned the property and bull-dozed it down. Our govt. has done all this. They've made it too damned easy.
Chuck
JohnRich 4
QuoteYou have been trumpeting how gun ownership is increasing and that more guns = less crime for months. Yet violent crime is up in the US as a whole (NYC, Chicago, Detroit Los Angeles excepted, of course), not just in places that imported N'Orleaneans. So it appears that more guns = more violent crime right now.
Pretty pathetic really, attempting to blame it on hurricane victims.
You already know everything I'm about to say, so you're just being disingenuous, as usual, with your arguments here.
There is no correlation between gun ownership levels and crime rate levels. The fact that you can have more guns with less crime just goes to prove that fact to the gun-o-phobes. It doesn't necessarily say that the guns are responsible for lower crime. Crime is independent of gun ownership rates.
Crime is up last year, yes. But it's still at record low levels for the last 20 years. You failed to mention that little part of the trend in crime rates. Tsk tsk.
What's really pathetic is your one-sided arguments trying to convince people that guns are bad, and responsible for crime, when you know better yourself. All one has to do is to look at the news story you chose to introduce this subject, compared to the much more complete ones that AggieDave provided. Tsk tsk.
JohnRich 4
QuoteHey John, I wonder why King Daley credits the lowering of the murder rate in Chicago to the Antigun laws that the city has.
The problem is that it took over 30years to have any effect and that was only for 5 years and now it is increasing again.
The gun-o-phobes love to cherry-pick their data to support their agenda. It ain't scientific, but a lot of liberals love it. Even if they know it's unscientific, that's okay with them, as long as it's useful in fooling the public in order to get what they want. Fact's aren't important, but banning guns is.
You know what this thread needs?
More condescension.
Oh, and beer.
More condescension.
Oh, and beer.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
rehmwa 2
QuoteYou know what this thread needs?
More condescension.
Oh, and beer.
ohhhhh, I think it's rife with condescension - it's a bit low on self-satisfied smirking and quips, and blatant oversimplification too.
definitely the quip level is quite low
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
So what? You don't think it needs beer?
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
rehmwa 2
Beer makes me feel bloated
can I substitue tequila or rum based drinks (or shots)?
it also needs nachos, but you don't hear me complaining about it.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
can I substitue tequila or rum based drinks (or shots)?
it also needs nachos, but you don't hear me complaining about it.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteBeer makes me feel bloated
can I substitue tequila or rum based drinks (or shots)?
it also needs nachos, but you don't hear me complaining about it.
You can sub in whatever you prefer.
HEY! Are you calling me a complainer?! Well, I call you a jerk.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
rehmwa 2
QuoteHEY! Are you calling me a complainer?! Well, I call you a jerk.
Has anyone told you your new avatar looks like a cross between Adrien Paul and Adam Sandler? (though why they'd want to have kids together is beyond me.)
It could be worse. At least Adrien has a cute sister (until she went with the short/lowmaintenance haircut on Baywatch)
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteQuoteBeer makes me feel bloated
can I substitue tequila or rum based drinks (or shots)?
it also needs nachos, but you don't hear me complaining about it.
You can sub in whatever you prefer.
HEY! Are you calling me a complainer?! Well, I call you a jerk.
May I ask for a glass of good Italian white wine?
And PLEASE: another helmet for JR!
Bwahahahaha. That's the way, aha, I like it..
Christel
PS: Your new avatar is OK.
dudeist skydiver # 3105
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteHey John, I wonder why King Daley credits the lowering of the murder rate in Chicago to the Antigun laws that the city has.
The problem is that it took over 30years to have any effect and that was only for 5 years and now it is increasing again.
The gun-o-phobes love to cherry-pick their data to support their agenda. It ain't scientific, but a lot of liberals love it. Even if they know it's unscientific, that's okay with them, as long as it's useful in fooling the public in order to get what they want. Fact's aren't important, but banning guns is.
the FACT is that the Chicago homicide rate went DOWN again last year according to the just-released FBI data, contrary to his assertion.
Now what was that about facts?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Kennedy 0
John, unless the city grew by leaps and bounds between 2004 and 2005 I wouldn't jumping for joy about their crime numbers. You had one less murder. Yes, one less, and depending on how things are finalized, that tiny little margin may end up reversing and causing Chicago to have the same or a higher murder rate. It also doesn't help that Illinois will not properly report it's statistics, so a complete comparison of violent crime is not possible.
In 2004, Chicago had 35106 murders, robberies, and aggrivated assaults.
In 2005, Chicago had 34354 murders, robberies, and aggrivated assaults.
That translates to one less murder, fifty two more robberies, and 821 fewer Ag Assaults, with the numbers still facing changes for the final pulication of the UCR. While the numbers are less important than the rates, since the city did not experience any extraordianry growth, they still show the picture clearer than John saying "the murder rate went down." Sure it did John. How much?
Now, please, tell me again what any of this has to do with firearms?
Because we've shown conclusively that availabity of firearms does not raise the violent crime rate. Making firearms, particularly handguns more availbe actually correlates with unexpected drops in the crime rate.
In 2004, Chicago had 35106 murders, robberies, and aggrivated assaults.
In 2005, Chicago had 34354 murders, robberies, and aggrivated assaults.
That translates to one less murder, fifty two more robberies, and 821 fewer Ag Assaults, with the numbers still facing changes for the final pulication of the UCR. While the numbers are less important than the rates, since the city did not experience any extraordianry growth, they still show the picture clearer than John saying "the murder rate went down." Sure it did John. How much?
Now, please, tell me again what any of this has to do with firearms?
Because we've shown conclusively that availabity of firearms does not raise the violent crime rate. Making firearms, particularly handguns more availbe actually correlates with unexpected drops in the crime rate.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
craddock 0
QuoteNow what was that about facts?
The Fact is that Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the Country, and the Fact is that they have some of the most strict Gun laws in the country. It was only a couple years ago (2003?) that they had more murders than LA and New York which had a much larger population.
Is Chicago really that proud of their Murder rate now?
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
JohnRich 4
Quotethe FACT is that the Chicago homicide rate went DOWN again last year according to the just-released FBI data, contrary to his assertion. Now what was that about facts?
Here are some real facts for the readers. And the real facts will show just how full of crap your assertion is, and how grossly and unethically you are acting to try and implant a false impression in the minds of those readers.
First, see the attached image showing homicide rate changes in major cities. Source: Globe and Mail
Notice how the change in Chicago's homicide rate is "-.2%" between 2004 and 2005. With 447 murders last year, that .2% represents ONE murder. That's right, just one single murder. Do the math!
And here is the mighty professor kallend trying to convince everyone that Chicago has had some kind of dramatic change for the better in their homicide rate.
A change of .2% (.002) is so statistically insignificant as to be laughable. And I can't believe that you would try and foist this kind of deceipt and misimpression upon people here. Shame on you.
Yeah, I know, you'll come back and claim; "Well, I didn't lie, did I? One less murder, is in fact 'down'". Well, you were mathematically correct. But it means absolutely nothing as far as trends go. You withheld the full truth and the full story, and you twisted one single data point of change into a misimpression that is a lie. That's your crime.
Readers: such are the tactics of the gun-o-phobes. Beware: don't be fooled by them! Let this be a lesson to you about the kinds of games that kallend plays here.
QuoteQuotethe FACT is that the Chicago homicide rate went DOWN again last year according to the just-released FBI data, contrary to his assertion. Now what was that about facts?
Here are some real facts for the readers. And the real facts will show just how full of crap your assertion is, and how grossly and unethically you are acting to try and implant a false impression in the minds of those readers.
First, see the attached image showing homicide rate changes in major cities. Source: Globe and Mail
Notice how the change in Chicago's homicide rate is "-.2%" between 2004 and 2005. With 447 murders last year, that .2% represents ONE murder. That's right, just one single murder. Do the math!
And here is the mighty professor kallend trying to convince everyone that Chicago has had some kind of dramatic change for the better in their homicide rate.
A change of .2% (.002) is so statistically insignificant as to be laughable. And I can't believe that you would try and foist this kind of deceipt and misimpression upon people here. Shame on you.
Yeah, I know, you'll come back and claim; "Well, I didn't lie, did I? One less murder, is in fact 'down'". Well, you were mathematically correct. But it means absolutely nothing as far as trends go. You withheld the full truth and the full story, and you twisted one single data point of change into a misimpression that is a lie. That's your crime.
Readers: such are the tactics of the gun-o-phobes. Beware: don't be fooled by them! Let this be a lesson to you about the kinds of games that kallend plays here.
Whoa there JR. I thought Bush was the one twisting facts and in essence lying.
Kennedy 0
Yep, it's that patheic.
With the way numbers can change, particularly homicides, between drafts and the final UCR publication, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out that Chicago's murder rate actual goes up between 2004 and 2005. What would it take, maybe three deaths to be determined as homicides? or three beating victims to die and go from ag assaults to murder?
John, I have to tell you kallend is really reaching for his "gun control correlates with lower murder rates" argument. Meanwhile everytime we hit him with another simple, logical representation of gun rights correlating with a drop in major crime, he seems to disappear.
As much as death is tragic and all that, I would love it if three more were reclassified and the rate went up. Could you imagine his reaction then?
With the way numbers can change, particularly homicides, between drafts and the final UCR publication, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out that Chicago's murder rate actual goes up between 2004 and 2005. What would it take, maybe three deaths to be determined as homicides? or three beating victims to die and go from ag assaults to murder?
John, I have to tell you kallend is really reaching for his "gun control correlates with lower murder rates" argument. Meanwhile everytime we hit him with another simple, logical representation of gun rights correlating with a drop in major crime, he seems to disappear.
As much as death is tragic and all that, I would love it if three more were reclassified and the rate went up. Could you imagine his reaction then?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
micro 0
good work Kennedy and JR! nicely done!
I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...
I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...
QuoteQuoteNow what was that about facts?
The Fact is that Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the Country, and the Fact is that they have some of the most strict Gun laws in the country. It was only a couple years ago (2003?) that they had more murders than LA and New York which had a much larger population.
Is Chicago really that proud of their Murder rate now?
Yes according to the Mayor, King Daley.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
QuoteQuotethe FACT is that the Chicago homicide rate went DOWN again last year according to the just-released FBI data, contrary to his assertion. Now what was that about facts?
Here are some real facts for the readers. And the real facts will show just how full of crap your assertion is, and how grossly and unethically you are acting to try and implant a false impression in the minds of those readers.
First, see the attached image showing homicide rate changes in major cities. Source: Globe and Mail
Notice how the change in Chicago's homicide rate is "-.2%" between 2004 and 2005. With 447 murders last year, that .2% represents ONE murder. That's right, just one single murder. Do the math!
And here is the mighty professor kallend trying to convince everyone that Chicago has had some kind of dramatic change for the better in their homicide rate.
A change of .2% (.002) is so statistically insignificant as to be laughable. And I can't believe that you would try and foist this kind of deceipt and misimpression upon people here. Shame on you.
Yeah, I know, you'll come back and claim; "Well, I didn't lie, did I? One less murder, is in fact 'down'". Well, you were mathematically correct. But it means absolutely nothing as far as trends go. You withheld the full truth and the full story, and you twisted one single data point of change into a misimpression that is a lie. That's your crime.
Readers: such are the tactics of the gun-o-phobes. Beware: don't be fooled by them! Let this be a lesson to you about the kinds of games that kallend plays here.
Just remember that Chicago started passing gun control laws in 1968, talk about a creeper effect!!!
How quickly did violent crime stats decrease when states passed shall issue laws? And for how long has violent crime stats been down in such states after the institution of shall issue laws?
How long has it taken non shall issue states/areas such as Chicago to actually see a significant decrease in violent crime?
Is the current decrease in violent crime in non gun friendly areas such as Chicago, LA, NYC a statistical fluke, considering such areas long term history of high rates of violent crime compared to other shall-issue areas?
I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites