DaVinci 0 #76 May 2, 2007 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps because this is a "gun free zone" and people are not allowed to carry at the Mall. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- maybe the someone should have told the gunman that, or maybe he didnt see the sign?? Thanks for pointing out that criminals will get and use guns no matter what the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #77 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote What? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? More importantly, comparisons between "no carry" states and "all" states don't speak to the issue of how gun control laws affect crime. What would be more telling would be violent crime rates before and after gun control legislation is passed. Over time, if there were a trend across the board (in all or most states that gun control legislation were enacted), it would suggest that the legislation affects violent crime in one way or another (edited to add the following) if those trends varied markedly from the overall trends or trends in states without gun-control legislation. There could be many reasons that "no carry" states have lower violent crime rates than the others. That data doesn't impress me at all in this discussion. Chicago's homicide rate has been decreasing faster than Dallas's or Houston's. Take a look. That's a start, but there needs to be more depth to the study. It needs a bigger n to be valid. Chicago has some 2M residents - how large a sample do you need? Ya' need more cities, silly, not more residents. There has been one large, comprehensive study done that I'm aware of, including all counties in the US, that shows that there was a significant decrease in violent crime in states that adopted shall-issue laws after those laws were in effect. The effects were even greater in urban, high-crime areas. BUT I also understand, though I haven't seen the studies, that upon further investigation, there was also a significant decrease in violent crime....but an even greater decrease....in states that did NOT adopt shall-issue laws. I haven't seen how these studies were conducted and therefore can't speak to their validity or reliability. They DO seem to have a big enough n though. Either way, it's pretty obvious to me that whatever effects gun-control legislation has is not huge. It's nowhere near what it would need to be to convince me that it's worth cutting into our liberties. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #78 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote "So we drove down the road, and I was lookin' for a house that looked like if there was somebody at home that it'd be somebody that didn't carry a gun or didn't have no weapons in the house, so they couldn't use them." -- Arkansas burglar Quote Said one burglar: "I don't think about gettin' caught, I think about gettin' gunned down, shot or somethin'...'cause you get into some people's houses...quick as I come in there, boom, they hit you right there. That's what I think about." Quote Real-world experiments yield results consistent with burglars' reports of their desire to avoid confrontations with armed victims. In Orlando in 1967, the police responded to a rape epidemic by initiating a highly publicized program training women in firearms use. [FN85] While rape increased in the nation and in *357 Florida over the next year, the rape rate fell eighty- eight percent in Orlando, and burglary dropped twenty-two percent. [FN86] The same year, rising rates of store robberies prompted a similar (but smaller-scale) program in Kansas City, Missouri, to train store owners in gun use. [FN87] The next year, while the robbery rate in Missouri and the United States continued to rise significantly, the rate fell in the Kansas City metro area. The trend of increasing burglary in the area also came to an abrupt end, contrary to state and national patterns. [FN88] In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring every home to have a gun. [FN89] Exceptions were made for conscientious objectors, people with criminal records, and for people in various other categories. [FN90] In the seven months before the ordinance, there had been forty-five residential burglaries; in the seven months after the ordinance, residential burglaries declined eighty-nine percent. [FN91] Over the next five years, the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was eighty-five percent below the rate before the enactment of the ordinance. [FN92] nonsense, you are just quoting stuff that supports your position ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Looks to me like Chicago is improving faster. It's easier to improve when you're further off the bell curve. Take a look at Dallas I thought we were talking about Houston and Chicago. If you want to bring Dallas back in, you'll need to do that research you've told me is not my job to do for you. The evidence provided shows that the one year value you provided for Dallas (16.8) is significantly better than the average of Chicago's last 6 years. It appears to would take Chicago two more "good" years to catch up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #80 May 3, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Looks to me like Chicago is improving faster. It's easier to improve when you're further off the bell curve. Take a look at Dallas I thought we were talking about Houston and Chicago. If you want to bring Dallas back in, you'll need to do that research you've told me is not my job to do for you. The evidence provided shows that the one year value you provided for Dallas (16.8) is significantly better than the average of Chicago's last 6 years. It appears to would take Chicago two more "good" years to catch up. Would you like to go back to the St. Valentine's Day massacre? It would make your case stronger. As of RIGHT NOW, Chicago is apparently safer than Dallas and Houston.... 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
JohnRich 4 #81 May 3, 2007 QuoteAs of RIGHT NOW, Chicago is apparently safer than Dallas and Houston. So what? Is that supposed to prove that Chicago gun-control reduces crime compared to Texas? And if so, then what about the years when RIGHT THEN, Dallas was lower than Chicago? Would that also prove that having concealed carry laws reduces crime compared to gun-restricted Chicago? How are you going to explain these two contradictions? One thing I know you won't do, is admit that gun control laws have no effect on gun crime. But that's a fact... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #82 May 3, 2007 Quote As of RIGHT NOW, Chicago is apparently safer than Dallas and Houston. I agree. If I was gonna commit a violent crime against someone, I'd be much safer in Chicago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #83 May 3, 2007 I saw that Detroit has re-claimed the #1 spot! WooooHoooo! Dem boys been battlin' hard but finally made it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #84 May 3, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? More importantly, comparisons between "no carry" states and "all" states don't speak to the issue of how gun control laws affect crime. What would be more telling would be violent crime rates before and after gun control legislation is passed. Over time, if there were a trend across the board (in all or most states that gun control legislation were enacted), it would suggest that the legislation affects violent crime in one way or another (edited to add the following) if those trends varied markedly from the overall trends or trends in states without gun-control legislation. There could be many reasons that "no carry" states have lower violent crime rates than the others. That data doesn't impress me at all in this discussion. Chicago's homicide rate has been decreasing faster than Dallas's or Houston's. Take a look. That's a start, but there needs to be more depth to the study. It needs a bigger n to be valid. Chicago has some 2M residents - how large a sample do you need? Ya' need more cities, silly, not more residents. Well, I gave you the most recent data for IL vs TX, and IL had lower homicide rate. There are lots of cities in IL and in TX. I gave you the most recent data for all NO CARRY states vs the rest, and the NO CARRY states have lower rates. NYC and Chicago have lower rates than Dallas and Houston. Dallas and Houston feature in the "Most Dangerous Large Cities list, Chicago and NYC do not. Homicide rates in Chicago and NYC have been declining faster than in Houston or Dallas. You guys keep thrashing around trying to prove your point, but YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT.... 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
kallend 2,027 #85 May 3, 2007 QuoteI saw that Detroit has re-claimed the #1 spot! WooooHoooo! Dem boys been battlin' hard but finally made it. Say it ain't so! Michigan is a "shall issue" state! The Second Amendment Foundation president (Alan Gottlieb) recently used Detroit as a poster city for CCW laws.... 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
bexren76 0 #86 May 3, 2007 Maybe I have missed something or am over simplifying but it seems to me that this is all a bit circular or chicken and egg. Do the public feel the need to arm themselves to protect themselves from the criminals or do the criminals arm themslves more because they know that the public is armed? I suspect you are now in a position where both are now equally true, regardless of how the thing got started. It may be true that it would not be easy or without cost to rid a society of guns once they are completely ingrained (for want of better word) but without a strategy to break the cycle won't things just escalate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #87 May 3, 2007 Quote Maybe I have missed something or am over simplifying but it seems to me that this is all a bit circular or chicken and egg. Do the public feel the need to arm themselves to protect themselves from the criminals or do the criminals arm themslves more because they know that the public is armed? I suspect you are now in a position where both are now equally true, regardless of how the thing got started. It may be true that it would not be easy or without cost to rid a society of guns once they are completely ingrained (for want of better word) but without a strategy to break the cycle won't things just escalate? Assuming this isn't just a troll, that's a very weak argument. Are you suggesting that a criminal going out to rob a bank won't need a gun because there's gun control laws? Or that drug gangs will disarm if they know that Joe Sixpack won't be packing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #88 May 3, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What? Stats from only one year? I would expect a scientist to give a much broader, thus more representative, time span. Or is '05 the only year that shows what you want to show? More importantly, comparisons between "no carry" states and "all" states don't speak to the issue of how gun control laws affect crime. What would be more telling would be violent crime rates before and after gun control legislation is passed. Over time, if there were a trend across the board (in all or most states that gun control legislation were enacted), it would suggest that the legislation affects violent crime in one way or another (edited to add the following) if those trends varied markedly from the overall trends or trends in states without gun-control legislation. There could be many reasons that "no carry" states have lower violent crime rates than the others. That data doesn't impress me at all in this discussion. Chicago's homicide rate has been decreasing faster than Dallas's or Houston's. Take a look. That's a start, but there needs to be more depth to the study. It needs a bigger n to be valid. Chicago has some 2M residents - how large a sample do you need? Ya' need more cities, silly, not more residents. Well, I gave you the most recent data for IL vs TX, and IL had lower homicide rate. There are lots of cities in IL and in TX. I gave you the most recent data for all NO CARRY states vs the rest, and the NO CARRY states have lower rates. NYC and Chicago have lower rates than Dallas and Houston. Dallas and Houston feature in the "Most Dangerous Large Cities list, Chicago and NYC do not. Homicide rates in Chicago and NYC have been declining faster than in Houston or Dallas. You guys keep thrashing around trying to prove your point, but YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT. You gave data for one year. Data for one of the few years that backs up your assertion. Data for only one year, a year chosen specifically to back up a claim, don't mean squat. You should know that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bexren76 0 #89 May 3, 2007 I'll try and answer that when I have got over the fact that you have suggested I might be a troll!..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #90 May 3, 2007 Quote Data for only one year, a year chosen specifically to back up a claim, don't mean squat. You should know that. The year was the most CURRENT one for which the FBI has published data. You'd prefer 1929 maybe? Do your own homework. By the way, I only posted this stuff to disprove the bogus claims made that CCW results in lower crime. I've done that. Crime may have gone down in FL and TX after "shall issue", but it also went down in "no issue" states.... 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
rehmwa 2 #91 May 3, 2007 QuoteAre you suggesting that a criminal going out to rob a bank won't need a gun because there's gun control laws? he'll just need a sticky note that says "gimme all the money or I'll hurt your feelings" and hand it to a sensitive teller educated in a fine left wing public school (Actually, if the teller is a middle aged white liberal then the guilt route is likely better "gimme all the money or YOU'll hurt MY feelings" Ban sticky notes! 3M is in bed with President _____ (Whoever is in office at the time) ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bexren76 0 #92 May 3, 2007 I hope it's not being suggested that not only might I be a troll but that I might also be a some over privileged leftie! In fact I was only suggesting that perhaps the argument had become a little polarised and that radical action might be required in the short term to move towards a different kind of society if that is what is desired. I don't pretend to be the author or some wise new strategy since I don't have to live with the stuff you do but if you guys like it, crack on. If I have kids at least I know they won't get shot whilst at uni.......(and yes, to clarify I mean physically on the campus not at any time during their academic life there.....) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #93 May 3, 2007 QuoteI'll try and answer that when I have got over the fact that you have suggested I might be a troll!..... With a statement like this do you understand why some might say that? QuoteDo the public feel the need to arm themselves to protect themselves from the criminals or do the criminals arm themslves more because they know that the public is armed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #94 May 3, 2007 QuoteQuote Data for only one year, a year chosen specifically to back up a claim, don't mean squat. You should know that. The year was the most CURRENT one for which the FBI has published data. You'd prefer 1929 maybe? Do your own homework. By the way, I only posted this stuff to disprove the bogus claims made that CCW results in lower crime. I've done that. Crime may have gone down in FL and TX after "shall issue", but it also went down in "no issue" states. No, what you have done is discarded all the data that you don't agree with and posted what was left. Do you run an experiment 10 times, discard the 8 results you don't agree with, show the remaining 2 and shout, "Hey! Look what I found!"? I certainly hope not. Regardless of whose crime rates are higher or what the latest trend is, if we lived in the same city you would stand a higher chance of being stabbed to death in a mugging than I. That's because I carry a means of protecting myself, you don't. That chance may be very small, but it's a lot smaller than yours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #95 May 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Data for only one year, a year chosen specifically to back up a claim, don't mean squat. You should know that. The year was the most CURRENT one for which the FBI has published data. You'd prefer 1929 maybe? Do your own homework. By the way, I only posted this stuff to disprove the bogus claims made that CCW results in lower crime. I've done that. Crime may have gone down in FL and TX after "shall issue", but it also went down in "no issue" states. No, what you have done is discarded all the data that you don't agree with and posted what was left. Do you run an experiment 10 times, discard the 8 results you don't agree with, show the remaining 2 and shout, "Hey! Look what I found!"? I certainly hope not. Regardless of whose crime rates are higher or what the latest trend is, if we lived in the same city you would stand a higher chance of being stabbed to death in a mugging than I. That's because I carry a means of protecting myself, you don't. That chance may be very small, but it's a lot smaller than yours. You, of course, have a far greater chance of having your gun fall into criminal hands and used against you or your family. Maybe small, but not zero.... 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
willard 0 #96 May 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Data for only one year, a year chosen specifically to back up a claim, don't mean squat. You should know that. The year was the most CURRENT one for which the FBI has published data. You'd prefer 1929 maybe? Do your own homework. By the way, I only posted this stuff to disprove the bogus claims made that CCW results in lower crime. I've done that. Crime may have gone down in FL and TX after "shall issue", but it also went down in "no issue" states. No, what you have done is discarded all the data that you don't agree with and posted what was left. Do you run an experiment 10 times, discard the 8 results you don't agree with, show the remaining 2 and shout, "Hey! Look what I found!"? I certainly hope not. Regardless of whose crime rates are higher or what the latest trend is, if we lived in the same city you would stand a higher chance of being stabbed to death in a mugging than I. That's because I carry a means of protecting myself, you don't. That chance may be very small, but it's a lot smaller than yours. You, of course, have a far greater chance of having your gun fall into criminal hands and used against you or your family. Maybe small, but not zero. But at least I have the option of using it if need be. Of course, you could always trust your life to the mercy of the miserable wretch who is robbing/mugging/beating you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bexren76 0 #97 May 3, 2007 Not really dude. It was a question, not a statement. I was actually asking what your thoughts were about your own society, but still........ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #98 May 3, 2007 > Of course, you could always trust your life to the mercy of the > miserable wretch who is robbing/mugging/beating you. Do you really believe those are the only two options? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #99 May 3, 2007 Quote> Of course, you could always trust your life to the mercy of the > miserable wretch who is robbing/mugging/beating you. Do you really believe those are the only two options? Do you care to name a third? I think today's society has amply shown that people (in general) no longer have the will to defend themselves. None of the "don't go to those places" stuff, either - the fickle finger of fate has tapped you on the shoulder, and you have a LARGE, pissed off dude in your face, screaming for you to "give him the rest of the money".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #100 May 3, 2007 >Do you care to name a third? A stick, a knife, your hands and feet - all effective weapons as well. I've been mugged exactly once, and he had his arm around my neck and his hand in my pocket before I knew what was going on. I threw him out of instinct, because that what I'd do to Jay when we were sparring - and I was honestly shocked when it worked and I saw a big guy lying on his back in front of me. He got up and ran away. I lost about $20. Had he gotten my gun instead of my money, I might not be here today. So it worked for me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
