kallend 2,146
Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteFlorida (large state, big cities) has higher homicide and violent crime than Illinois (large state, big cities).
And Texas is lower in both than Illinois.
Oklahoma (rural, one medium city) has much higher homicide and violent crime rate than Wisconsin (rural, one medium sized city).
Utah is lower in both than Wisconsin. So is Oregon.
Now prove it's due to the guns.
(DC is still #1 in both stats, btw)
I haven't made ANY claims, Ron did. But you have to cherry pick your states to justify his claims.
So? You cherry-picked states to justify yours.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteFlorida (large state, big cities) has higher homicide and violent crime than Illinois (large state, big cities).
And Texas is lower in both than Illinois.
Oklahoma (rural, one medium city) has much higher homicide and violent crime rate than Wisconsin (rural, one medium sized city).
Utah is lower in both than Wisconsin. So is Oregon.
Now prove it's due to the guns.
(DC is still #1 in both stats, btw)
When was DC made a state? I didn't see that on Fox News.
About the time they started issuing their own driver's licenses and collecting their own income taxes.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
steve1 5
I think people are beginning to realize that you often can't depend on the police to save your bacon.
There's a school in Texas that allows teachers to carry guns. Can you believe that! At first I thought this was crazy. After all, don't we all know a teacher or two who is nuts. But after studying this further, I'm not so sure this isn't such a bad idea.
These teachers undergo extensive training prior to being permitted to do this. Statistics show that up to 70 percent of violent offenders (including armed killers) are brought to bay, not by police, but by citizens who are on the scene. Many times these are unarmed people who bring down an armed assailant.
I know if I was trying to subdue an armed criminal before he killed my friends and I....I would want a gun too. I wouldn't want to sit on my hands and wait ten minutes (or more) while Mr. Nut Case emptied magazines of ammo into us....
There's a school in Texas that allows teachers to carry guns. Can you believe that! At first I thought this was crazy. After all, don't we all know a teacher or two who is nuts. But after studying this further, I'm not so sure this isn't such a bad idea.
These teachers undergo extensive training prior to being permitted to do this. Statistics show that up to 70 percent of violent offenders (including armed killers) are brought to bay, not by police, but by citizens who are on the scene. Many times these are unarmed people who bring down an armed assailant.
I know if I was trying to subdue an armed criminal before he killed my friends and I....I would want a gun too. I wouldn't want to sit on my hands and wait ten minutes (or more) while Mr. Nut Case emptied magazines of ammo into us....
QuoteQuoteQuote
Shady use of data, Ron. You use a ratio for one and a difference for the other. To go from 4.9 to 5.4 is a 10% increase
Shady or merely sloppy. But 10% doesn't match up well at all to 300%, esp since it drifts up and down, whereas guns in circulation increases constantly.
Not all cause/effect relationships are linear, so that's a sloppy argument.
John, it would have been better for you to shut up on this one, rather than encourage me to verify the slopes. They indicate outright dishonesty on your part. Given a choice of sloppy or fraudulent, I take the first one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
This shows your 5.4 figure for 2008. It also shows this to the be lowest rate since 1965, with the peak of 9.8 in 1991.
There is absolutely no cause/effect pattern that would support a relationship between the curves. We know that there have been major spurts in gun purchases since the decline in 1991: the 94 AWB, Clinton's attacks on the gun industry, CA's attacks, 9/11 terrorist fears, Obama fears. And yet, the homicide rate declined, not increased, and ended up at 55% of the 1991 peak.
So what we know is that you cherry picked the years to make it seem like there has been a constant gradual increase. Though it was still pretty lame - a 10% change over 50 years is too small to attribute to any singular factor.
riddler 0
QuoteThese teachers undergo extensive training prior to being permitted to do this. Statistics show that up to 70 percent of violent offenders (including armed killers) are brought to bay, not by police, but by citizens who are on the scene. Many times these are unarmed people who bring down an armed assailant.
I know if I was trying to subdue an armed criminal before he killed my friends and I....I would want a gun too. I wouldn't want to sit on my hands and wait ten minutes (or more) while Mr. Nut Case emptied magazines of ammo into us....
While I am a proponent of responsible gun ownership (no, I don't own one), I have to say that a lot of people that I know that own guns seem to talk a lot about being a hero, apprehending criminals, saving their friends/family, policing the streets, etc, etc. I'm not saying you're saying that, only that the mentality does disturb me. I've heard of very few instances where people out on the street are cornered (I am excluding shop owners), and they can't get away, rather than draw a gun.
It seems that wielding and/or using a gun might be a good very last resort if you can't run away, call the police in time, hide, or one of other many countless options. I think there are other times when the option is good (home defense, etc).
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
QuoteI have to say that a lot of people that I know that own guns seem to talk a lot about being a hero, apprehending criminals, saving their friends/family, policing the streets, etc
Me too. Then again, I know a lot of cops.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
Ron 10
QuoteSource?
Been shown over and over... You just ignore it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
QuoteShady use of data, Ron.
Data you provided.
Even with a 10% increase in crime.... Gun ownership has gone up MUCH more than that.
So you can cherry pick the data, and massage the numbers all you want, but your position is not supported no matter what you do.... And you honestly know it but do not want to admit your position is emotional and not based in facts.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
jcd11235 0
QuoteGun ownership has gone up MUCH more than that.
Does the threefold increase in gun ownership which you previously mentioned refer to a 300% increase in the number of guns,300% increase in the number of guns per 100,000 residents, 300% increase in the number of gun owners, or a 300% increase in the number of gun owners per 100,000 US residents?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Ron 10
Handguns per 1k.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
jcd11235 0
QuoteHandguns per 1k.
A statistic showing handgun owners per 1K (or per 100K) would be much more relevant.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteQuoteHandguns per 1k.
A statistic showing handgun owners per 1K (or per 100K) would be much more relevant.
Probably.
However, the inverted U shape of the homicide rate pretty much eliminates ownership as relevant.
QuoteQuoteQuoteFlorida (large state, big cities) has higher homicide and violent crime than Illinois (large state, big cities).
And Texas is lower in both than Illinois.
Oklahoma (rural, one medium city) has much higher homicide and violent crime rate than Wisconsin (rural, one medium sized city).
Utah is lower in both than Wisconsin. So is Oregon.
Now prove it's due to the guns.
(DC is still #1 in both stats, btw)
I haven't made ANY claims, Ron did. But you have to cherry pick your states to justify his claims.
And you didnt cherry pick yours?
Get real!Nothing opens like a Deere!
You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!
You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Well, it just seems to me that's kind of a waste.
So are SUV's - but people still seem to buy em.
>I sometimes wonder who the NRA really works for; the gun owners or
>the gun manufacturers.
Both, I think.
So are SUV's - but people still seem to buy em.
>I sometimes wonder who the NRA really works for; the gun owners or
>the gun manufacturers.
Both, I think.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteStates that have CHL/CWP have lower crime rates than States without. So it seems it DOES reduce crime.
When ice cream sales go up, domestic violence increases.
Ice cream causes domestic violence.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteI didn't see that on Fox News.
Aha! so you admit you watch fox news.
Kind of like eating stinky cheese, or better yet, rotting carrion. Eventually it grows on you.
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Shady use of data, Ron. You use a ratio for one and a difference for the other. To go from 4.9 to 5.4 is a 10% increase
Shady or merely sloppy. But 10% doesn't match up well at all to 300%, esp since it drifts up and down, whereas guns in circulation increases constantly.
Not all cause/effect relationships are linear, so that's a sloppy argument.
John, it would have been better for you to shut up on this one, rather than encourage me to verify the slopes. They indicate outright dishonesty on your part. Given a choice of sloppy or fraudulent, I take the first one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
This shows your 5.4 figure for 2008. It also shows this to the be lowest rate since 1965, with the peak of 9.8 in 1991.
There is absolutely no cause/effect pattern that would support a relationship between the curves. We know that there have been major spurts in gun purchases since the decline in 1991: the 94 AWB, Clinton's attacks on the gun industry, CA's attacks, 9/11 terrorist fears, Obama fears. And yet, the homicide rate declined, not increased, and ended up at 55% of the 1991 peak.
So what we know is that you cherry picked the years to make it seem like there has been a constant gradual increase. Though it was still pretty lame - a 10% change over 50 years is too small to attribute to any singular factor.
No, if you bothered to follow the thread I simply answered a question that someone asked. They chose the years, I didn't. See posts #1 and #3 for proof.
I also made no claim whatsoever about cause and effect.
I'll accept your apology.
...
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.
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteShady use of data, Ron.
Data you provided.
.
No, The USDOJ and the FBI provided it. I quoted it. You misused it.
...
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.
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFlorida (large state, big cities) has higher homicide and violent crime than Illinois (large state, big cities).
And Texas is lower in both than Illinois.
Oklahoma (rural, one medium city) has much higher homicide and violent crime rate than Wisconsin (rural, one medium sized city).
Utah is lower in both than Wisconsin. So is Oregon.
Now prove it's due to the guns.
(DC is still #1 in both stats, btw)
When was DC made a state? I didn't see that on Fox News.
About the time they started issuing their own driver's licenses and collecting their own income taxes.
Why aren't there 51 stars on the flag then?
...
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.
riddler 0
QuoteMe too. Then again, I know a lot of cops.
Fair statement
I know a few rent-a-cops like this, as well - one was rejected by several law enforcement agencies. Troubling that he routinely carried more weapons than the average police officers I know.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
riddler 0
QuoteWhy aren't there 51 stars on the flag then?
Because the GOP strongly objected to a 2% increase in government
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFlorida (large state, big cities) has higher homicide and violent crime than Illinois (large state, big cities).
And Texas is lower in both than Illinois.
Oklahoma (rural, one medium city) has much higher homicide and violent crime rate than Wisconsin (rural, one medium sized city).
Utah is lower in both than Wisconsin. So is Oregon.
Now prove it's due to the guns.
(DC is still #1 in both stats, btw)
I haven't made ANY claims, Ron did. But you have to cherry pick your states to justify his claims.
And you didnt cherry pick yours?
Get real!
It was Ron who suggested taking population density into account.
There are only 2 non carry states and I picked both, so how is that cherry picking?
IL and FL have similar population density and each has a big city, so that's a fair comparison. TX has a much lower population density than IL so that's not a fair comparison, mnealtx
.
I was being generous by comparing WI (population density 103/mi^2) with OK (52.7/mi^2) but mnealtx went way overboard with his cherries when he chose UT at only 32/mi^2 which is less than 1/3 of WI's.
The 2 states closest in population density to WI are LA and KY. So let's compare WI with LA (population density 98.6/mi^2, very close to and slightly less than WI) and KY (pop density 106.8/mi^2)
WI homicide rate 2.6
KY homicide rate 4.6
LA homicide rate 11.9
WI violent crime rate 274
KY violent crime rate 296
LA violent crime rate 656
All data from the 2008 FBI UCR.
Happy now?
...
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.
QuoteQuote
Not all cause/effect relationships are linear, so that's a sloppy argument.
No, if you bothered to follow the thread I simply answered a question that someone asked. They chose the years, I didn't. See posts #1 and #3 for proof.
I also made no claim whatsoever about cause and effect.
I'll accept your apology.
It's about your own remarks, which you knew were unsupportable. The rest of the thread doesn't matter- you tried to backpedal with some BS about non linear correlations.
Flat out truth- there is no correlation that will support this inverted U shape. Your suggestions to the contrary are fantasies or lies.
Not all cause/effect relationships are linear, so that's a sloppy argument.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites