kallend 2,027 #151 October 18, 2007 QuoteQuote Well, golly gee, it seems that Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, and New Orleans metro areas ALL have higher homicide rates than NYC metro area according to the 2006 UCR. Houston and NO are far higher. There goes mnealtx's theory. Whoda Thunkit? No externalities involved with those two cities, now? You should be less transparent. Did you actually read mnealtx's posts to which this was a response? Thought not. He compared NYC to the bucolic, pastoral state of Vermont. I think the externalities in THAT comparison make mine look trifling.... 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
NCclimber 0 #152 October 18, 2007 QuoteWell over 300,000 legal guns pass into the hands of criminals every year according to the US DoJ, mostly by theft. Do you have anything more recent than a 12 year old report to back up that claim? I ask because violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #153 October 18, 2007 Be careful not to ask John Kallend a question he does not care to answer, you can be banned for it. The nerve of us commoners to question SC royalty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #154 October 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteWell over 300,000 legal guns pass into the hands of criminals every year according to the US DoJ, mostly by theft. Do you have anything more recent than a 12 year old report to back up that claim? Quote No, do you? I ask because violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Burglary isn't, though. And according to the 2006UCR, crime is on its way up again.... 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 NCclimber 0 #155 October 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell over 300,000 legal guns pass into the hands of criminals every year according to the US DoJ, mostly by theft. Do you have anything more recent than a 12 year old report to back up that claim? Quote No, do you? I ask because violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Burglary isn't, though. And according to the 2006UCR, crime is on its way up again. A dodge and trying to put the onus on me. Nice try. How about a link that burglary isn't half of what is was in 1995. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #156 October 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell over 300,000 legal guns pass into the hands of criminals every year according to the US DoJ, mostly by theft. Do you have anything more recent than a 12 year old report to back up that claim? Quote No, do you? I ask because violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Burglary isn't, though. And according to the 2006UCR, crime is on its way up again. A dodge and trying to put the onus on me. Nice try. How about a link that burglary isn't half of what is was in 1995. How about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data?... 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 kelpdiver 2 #157 October 18, 2007 Quotein Florida it's a felony for a gun owner to be careless... How exactly is that phrased? It's hard to codify 'don't be a dumbass.' Do you make all the basic gun handling rules into laws? I don't have kids, so I don't need to protect against that sort of concern. If I owned instead of renting, I'd get a safe I could bolt to the floor. But I wouldn't put everything inside of it - what's the point of a gun for defense if you have to remove it from the safe and/or trigger lock? Nonetheless, when I read about how a teenage kid points a gun at his friend, pulls the trigger, and kills him, I wonder if it's always an accident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #158 October 18, 2007 Quotemaybe criminal negligence on the part of the owner? Yes. Which is why I suggest that your statement is oxymoronic. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 801 #159 October 18, 2007 Oops...I was mistaken! Specifically in regards to children, I was under the impression it was written to attempt to prevent access to weapons by those it would be illegal for the to have a gun in their possesion....but alas, only children. State law holds gun owners responsible if they leave a gun easily accessible to a child under 16 years old and the child uses the gun to injure or threaten someone. In addition, individual counties may strengthen their CAP law by requiring gun owners to lock up firearms when not under an adults control, in homes where children are present. Miami-Dade County and the City of South Miami have adopted such ordinances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,996 #160 October 18, 2007 >Dr. John Kallend Do you Own a Firearm? No spamming. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #161 October 18, 2007 Otay Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #162 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Well, golly gee, it seems that Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, and New Orleans metro areas ALL have higher homicide rates than NYC metro area according to the 2006 UCR. Houston and NO are far higher. There goes mnealtx's theory. Whoda Thunkit? No externalities involved with those two cities, now? You should be less transparent. Did you actually read mnealtx's posts to which this was a response? Thought not. He compared NYC to the bucolic, pastoral state of Vermont. I think the externalities in THAT comparison make mine look trifling. Nice dodge, Doc. Since you're having problems with the concept, I'll explain. I admit, I took a tangent on the state I used for comparison - mostly due to DC's mayor saying that the gun problem in DC was due to the proximity to VA, which has less restrictive gun laws than DC (as does most of the rest of the country). Now - since you assert that availability of guns are the cause of crime, and Vermont (and Alaska) have the most lax gun control laws (at least in regards to the carry of weapons), then VT should have been a seething mass of crime...all those guns!! NOW, since you can't say that, you try to talk about externalities - strikingly similar to how the pro-2nd folks keep asserting that it's about the CRIMINAL, not the tool they use.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ripple 0 #163 October 19, 2007 Quote NYC Crime Rates 2005-2006(from UCR) Year - Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault 2005 25932 238 676 11393 13625 2006 25132 266 662 10842 13362 Slight reductions in most categories, more murders. Overall violent crime rate dropped from 320/100k to 310/100k. NYC has had a gun ban for *decades*, so I doubt that the recent decline is due to that, to be perfectly honest. Let's compare to Vermont - a state which has NO restriction on concealed carry (or any other carry, for that matter) and which shares a border with NY. If the availability of guns is the problem, then crime should be higher in VT. Unfortunately, the information I have for Vermont is only for 2005. Here's the stats for the largest city listed. Essex, VT Year - Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault 2005 16 0 2 3 11 That equates to 83.7/100k violent crime rate. If it truly were due to the availability of guns, I would expect that Vermont would have a MUCH higher crime rate. FYI - due to the ability of anyone to edit a Wiki entry, it's usually not regarded as a valid source for research. Thank you, that's interesting and helped me see the picture far more clearly. As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #164 October 19, 2007 QuoteAs far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... The problem is that it's easily changed by anyone. It's not a bad starting point for ideas and other places to look for hard info, however...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #165 October 19, 2007 QuoteHow about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data? How nice. I ask you for supporting information - you (essentially) tell me to fuck off - and instead of asking me for supporting information, you accuse me of being a liar. Then again, we've seen your lies. Here's my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm This whole exchange has a familiar ring. You use outdated information, from when most (if not all) crime levels were significantly higher than current levels, to support your position. Then you have choice phrases like "crime is on its way up again", conveniently sidestepping the fact that the Violent Crime rate dropped every consecutive year from 1991 to 2004. The murder rate dropped every consecutive year from 1993 to 2000. The 2004 rate was the same as 2000. Overall, the crime situation in this country is dramatically better than just about any year in the 80s or 90s. Saying "crime is on its way up again" is kind of like saying "gas prices are on their way down again" because pump prices dropped from $3.15 to $3.12. Technically you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite misleading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #166 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteHow about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data? How nice. I ask you for supporting information - you (essentially) tell me to fuck off - and instead of asking me for supporting information, you accuse me of being a liar. Then again, we've seen your lies. Here's my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm This whole exchange has a familiar ring. You use outdated information, from when most (if not all) crime levels were significantly higher than current levels, to support your position. Then you have choice phrases like "crime is on its way up again", conveniently sidestepping the fact that the Violent Crime rate dropped every consecutive year from 1991 to 2004. The murder rate dropped every consecutive year from 1993 to 2000. The 2004 rate was the same as 2000. Overall, the crime situation in this country is dramatically better than just about any year in the 80s or 90s. Saying "crime is on its way up again" is kind of like saying "gas prices are on their way down again" because pump prices dropped from $3.15 to $3.12. Technically you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite misleading. Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years.... 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 #167 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Not in my classes, as a primary source. It is very good for locating primary sources, though.... 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 NCclimber 0 #168 October 19, 2007 Quote Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years. Love the cherry picking, Chief Over the last 15 years: Burglary is down 42% Violent Crime is down 37% Murder is down 38% Robbery is down 45% Considering just about every crime rate is now significantly lower than the period used for your 300,000 guns stolen/yr. claim, do you really think it's intellectually honest to claim that figure is accurate for the present? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #169 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years. Love the cherry picking, Chief Over the last 15 years: Burglary is down 42% Violent Crime is down 37% Murder is down 38% Robbery is down 45% Considering just about every crime rate is now significantly lower than the period used for your 300,000 guns stolen/yr. claim, do you really think it's intellectually honest to claim that figure is accurate for the present? Ha ha 12 years, 15 years, make up your mind. What happened to your "violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago" claim then? What happened to 12 years (that YOU chose)? Now you've gone to 15 years, still cant make "1/2", and you accuse ME of cherry picking. A little help with arithmetic, 10 is closer to 12 than 15 is. Burglaries are down 11.2% in 10 years per the FBI UCR Table 1A. If you have any better data on gun thefts than the number I quoted (more than 300,000 per year, source US DoJ) why don't YOU provide it for us instead of whining about my source and leading us on a merry dance with your red herring on violent crime rates. Edited to add - your numbers are all higher than the FBI UCR data (link given previously). You have a more reliable source of actual data (not estimates) than the FBI?... 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 NCclimber 0 #170 October 19, 2007 Quote A little help with arithmetic, 10 is closer to 12 than 15 is. Burglaries are down 11.2% in 10 years Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #171 October 19, 2007 The DOJ also reports that the average annual handgun homicides between 1987 and 1991 was 10,600. They also state average annual number of victimizations in which victims used firearms to defend themselves or their property between 1987 and 1992 was 62,200 for violent crimes and 82,500 for all crimes. Further, they make this statement: "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims' injury outcomes." "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #172 October 19, 2007 I carry a gun and I have never been burgled, mugged, robbed, or a victim of violent crime, so my rate is 0%. That's good enough for me. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ripple 0 #173 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote Quote As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Not in my classes, as a primary source. It is very good for locating primary sources, though. Um, I think we're getting a little too hung up on Wikipedia in this instance. I was merely using it to illustrate a question I had, not prove a point. Although.... pm sent Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites digame 0 #174 October 19, 2007 How is he spamming?. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NelKel 0 #175 October 20, 2007 : Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns? And also.... Do Americans still think they need an armed populous/millitia to deter any potential attackers from trying to invade their country? do they think their armed forces won't be able to cope on their own if they are attacked and so will need the help of the gun toting members of the public to help them? <<< The price should be paid by the parents for their lack of parneting. My Father taught me at a young age to respect firearms, game hunting, the laws that govern firearms, and the laws of GOD. We have a GODless generation of unrespectful youth that are the pride of their parents lack of gaurdianship. If .....the child were to use a bomb, poison, or a BIG hunting knife to kill students because gun were illegal would you want to close all the manufactures of chemicals or knife makers? Perhaps we could all start using chopstiks instead of steak knives. I feel horribaly for thoes sdtudents and parents that were hurt or killed in school shootings. But Guns don't kill..your childern do! Judging from the way you wrote (Do Americans still think ,do they think their armed forces ,invade their country). I take it your a foreniger. Perhaps you should seek citizenship, then run for election where you could HELP to change OUR laws. Until then you should worry about your own. You should look in your back yard at you own childern, raise them properly to respect life. That is what you should do. It seems to me that most Americans understand this. WE are the ones who have the right to bear arms and life liberty and persuit of happness. That is for us to enjoy and you to long for. That is just the way it is. It is our responsibility to raise our childer right, and to teach them to protect thoes right. I would gladly assist our armed forces and police in protecting our homeland from invaders, with out question I would die for my childern, and our rights under OUR constitution. Hundreds of years ago China invented blackpowder, perhaps they are to blame for all of this. If the massacres were done by black belt ninja's who were 13 years old would your comment be that martial arts should be banned? I think not. Your just a gun hater. It is because you just don't understand the freedom of this country. Ultamatly...YOU are responsibal for the actions of your children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
NCclimber 0 #155 October 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell over 300,000 legal guns pass into the hands of criminals every year according to the US DoJ, mostly by theft. Do you have anything more recent than a 12 year old report to back up that claim? Quote No, do you? I ask because violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Burglary isn't, though. And according to the 2006UCR, crime is on its way up again. A dodge and trying to put the onus on me. Nice try. How about a link that burglary isn't half of what is was in 1995. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #156 October 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell over 300,000 legal guns pass into the hands of criminals every year according to the US DoJ, mostly by theft. Do you have anything more recent than a 12 year old report to back up that claim? Quote No, do you? I ask because violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Burglary isn't, though. And according to the 2006UCR, crime is on its way up again. A dodge and trying to put the onus on me. Nice try. How about a link that burglary isn't half of what is was in 1995. How about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data?... 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 kelpdiver 2 #157 October 18, 2007 Quotein Florida it's a felony for a gun owner to be careless... How exactly is that phrased? It's hard to codify 'don't be a dumbass.' Do you make all the basic gun handling rules into laws? I don't have kids, so I don't need to protect against that sort of concern. If I owned instead of renting, I'd get a safe I could bolt to the floor. But I wouldn't put everything inside of it - what's the point of a gun for defense if you have to remove it from the safe and/or trigger lock? Nonetheless, when I read about how a teenage kid points a gun at his friend, pulls the trigger, and kills him, I wonder if it's always an accident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #158 October 18, 2007 Quotemaybe criminal negligence on the part of the owner? Yes. Which is why I suggest that your statement is oxymoronic. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 801 #159 October 18, 2007 Oops...I was mistaken! Specifically in regards to children, I was under the impression it was written to attempt to prevent access to weapons by those it would be illegal for the to have a gun in their possesion....but alas, only children. State law holds gun owners responsible if they leave a gun easily accessible to a child under 16 years old and the child uses the gun to injure or threaten someone. In addition, individual counties may strengthen their CAP law by requiring gun owners to lock up firearms when not under an adults control, in homes where children are present. Miami-Dade County and the City of South Miami have adopted such ordinances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,996 #160 October 18, 2007 >Dr. John Kallend Do you Own a Firearm? No spamming. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #161 October 18, 2007 Otay Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #162 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Well, golly gee, it seems that Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, and New Orleans metro areas ALL have higher homicide rates than NYC metro area according to the 2006 UCR. Houston and NO are far higher. There goes mnealtx's theory. Whoda Thunkit? No externalities involved with those two cities, now? You should be less transparent. Did you actually read mnealtx's posts to which this was a response? Thought not. He compared NYC to the bucolic, pastoral state of Vermont. I think the externalities in THAT comparison make mine look trifling. Nice dodge, Doc. Since you're having problems with the concept, I'll explain. I admit, I took a tangent on the state I used for comparison - mostly due to DC's mayor saying that the gun problem in DC was due to the proximity to VA, which has less restrictive gun laws than DC (as does most of the rest of the country). Now - since you assert that availability of guns are the cause of crime, and Vermont (and Alaska) have the most lax gun control laws (at least in regards to the carry of weapons), then VT should have been a seething mass of crime...all those guns!! NOW, since you can't say that, you try to talk about externalities - strikingly similar to how the pro-2nd folks keep asserting that it's about the CRIMINAL, not the tool they use.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ripple 0 #163 October 19, 2007 Quote NYC Crime Rates 2005-2006(from UCR) Year - Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault 2005 25932 238 676 11393 13625 2006 25132 266 662 10842 13362 Slight reductions in most categories, more murders. Overall violent crime rate dropped from 320/100k to 310/100k. NYC has had a gun ban for *decades*, so I doubt that the recent decline is due to that, to be perfectly honest. Let's compare to Vermont - a state which has NO restriction on concealed carry (or any other carry, for that matter) and which shares a border with NY. If the availability of guns is the problem, then crime should be higher in VT. Unfortunately, the information I have for Vermont is only for 2005. Here's the stats for the largest city listed. Essex, VT Year - Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault 2005 16 0 2 3 11 That equates to 83.7/100k violent crime rate. If it truly were due to the availability of guns, I would expect that Vermont would have a MUCH higher crime rate. FYI - due to the ability of anyone to edit a Wiki entry, it's usually not regarded as a valid source for research. Thank you, that's interesting and helped me see the picture far more clearly. As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #164 October 19, 2007 QuoteAs far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... The problem is that it's easily changed by anyone. It's not a bad starting point for ideas and other places to look for hard info, however...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #165 October 19, 2007 QuoteHow about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data? How nice. I ask you for supporting information - you (essentially) tell me to fuck off - and instead of asking me for supporting information, you accuse me of being a liar. Then again, we've seen your lies. Here's my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm This whole exchange has a familiar ring. You use outdated information, from when most (if not all) crime levels were significantly higher than current levels, to support your position. Then you have choice phrases like "crime is on its way up again", conveniently sidestepping the fact that the Violent Crime rate dropped every consecutive year from 1991 to 2004. The murder rate dropped every consecutive year from 1993 to 2000. The 2004 rate was the same as 2000. Overall, the crime situation in this country is dramatically better than just about any year in the 80s or 90s. Saying "crime is on its way up again" is kind of like saying "gas prices are on their way down again" because pump prices dropped from $3.15 to $3.12. Technically you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite misleading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #166 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteHow about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data? How nice. I ask you for supporting information - you (essentially) tell me to fuck off - and instead of asking me for supporting information, you accuse me of being a liar. Then again, we've seen your lies. Here's my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm This whole exchange has a familiar ring. You use outdated information, from when most (if not all) crime levels were significantly higher than current levels, to support your position. Then you have choice phrases like "crime is on its way up again", conveniently sidestepping the fact that the Violent Crime rate dropped every consecutive year from 1991 to 2004. The murder rate dropped every consecutive year from 1993 to 2000. The 2004 rate was the same as 2000. Overall, the crime situation in this country is dramatically better than just about any year in the 80s or 90s. Saying "crime is on its way up again" is kind of like saying "gas prices are on their way down again" because pump prices dropped from $3.15 to $3.12. Technically you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite misleading. Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years.... 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 #167 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Not in my classes, as a primary source. It is very good for locating primary sources, though.... 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 NCclimber 0 #168 October 19, 2007 Quote Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years. Love the cherry picking, Chief Over the last 15 years: Burglary is down 42% Violent Crime is down 37% Murder is down 38% Robbery is down 45% Considering just about every crime rate is now significantly lower than the period used for your 300,000 guns stolen/yr. claim, do you really think it's intellectually honest to claim that figure is accurate for the present? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #169 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years. Love the cherry picking, Chief Over the last 15 years: Burglary is down 42% Violent Crime is down 37% Murder is down 38% Robbery is down 45% Considering just about every crime rate is now significantly lower than the period used for your 300,000 guns stolen/yr. claim, do you really think it's intellectually honest to claim that figure is accurate for the present? Ha ha 12 years, 15 years, make up your mind. What happened to your "violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago" claim then? What happened to 12 years (that YOU chose)? Now you've gone to 15 years, still cant make "1/2", and you accuse ME of cherry picking. A little help with arithmetic, 10 is closer to 12 than 15 is. Burglaries are down 11.2% in 10 years per the FBI UCR Table 1A. If you have any better data on gun thefts than the number I quoted (more than 300,000 per year, source US DoJ) why don't YOU provide it for us instead of whining about my source and leading us on a merry dance with your red herring on violent crime rates. Edited to add - your numbers are all higher than the FBI UCR data (link given previously). You have a more reliable source of actual data (not estimates) than the FBI?... 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 NCclimber 0 #170 October 19, 2007 Quote A little help with arithmetic, 10 is closer to 12 than 15 is. Burglaries are down 11.2% in 10 years Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #171 October 19, 2007 The DOJ also reports that the average annual handgun homicides between 1987 and 1991 was 10,600. They also state average annual number of victimizations in which victims used firearms to defend themselves or their property between 1987 and 1992 was 62,200 for violent crimes and 82,500 for all crimes. Further, they make this statement: "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims' injury outcomes." "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #172 October 19, 2007 I carry a gun and I have never been burgled, mugged, robbed, or a victim of violent crime, so my rate is 0%. That's good enough for me. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ripple 0 #173 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote Quote As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Not in my classes, as a primary source. It is very good for locating primary sources, though. Um, I think we're getting a little too hung up on Wikipedia in this instance. I was merely using it to illustrate a question I had, not prove a point. Although.... pm sent Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites digame 0 #174 October 19, 2007 How is he spamming?. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NelKel 0 #175 October 20, 2007 : Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns? And also.... Do Americans still think they need an armed populous/millitia to deter any potential attackers from trying to invade their country? do they think their armed forces won't be able to cope on their own if they are attacked and so will need the help of the gun toting members of the public to help them? <<< The price should be paid by the parents for their lack of parneting. My Father taught me at a young age to respect firearms, game hunting, the laws that govern firearms, and the laws of GOD. We have a GODless generation of unrespectful youth that are the pride of their parents lack of gaurdianship. If .....the child were to use a bomb, poison, or a BIG hunting knife to kill students because gun were illegal would you want to close all the manufactures of chemicals or knife makers? Perhaps we could all start using chopstiks instead of steak knives. I feel horribaly for thoes sdtudents and parents that were hurt or killed in school shootings. But Guns don't kill..your childern do! Judging from the way you wrote (Do Americans still think ,do they think their armed forces ,invade their country). I take it your a foreniger. Perhaps you should seek citizenship, then run for election where you could HELP to change OUR laws. Until then you should worry about your own. You should look in your back yard at you own childern, raise them properly to respect life. That is what you should do. It seems to me that most Americans understand this. WE are the ones who have the right to bear arms and life liberty and persuit of happness. That is for us to enjoy and you to long for. That is just the way it is. It is our responsibility to raise our childer right, and to teach them to protect thoes right. I would gladly assist our armed forces and police in protecting our homeland from invaders, with out question I would die for my childern, and our rights under OUR constitution. Hundreds of years ago China invented blackpowder, perhaps they are to blame for all of this. If the massacres were done by black belt ninja's who were 13 years old would your comment be that martial arts should be banned? I think not. Your just a gun hater. It is because you just don't understand the freedom of this country. Ultamatly...YOU are responsibal for the actions of your children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,027 #156 October 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell over 300,000 legal guns pass into the hands of criminals every year according to the US DoJ, mostly by theft. Do you have anything more recent than a 12 year old report to back up that claim? Quote No, do you? I ask because violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Burglary isn't, though. And according to the 2006UCR, crime is on its way up again. A dodge and trying to put the onus on me. Nice try. How about a link that burglary isn't half of what is was in 1995. How about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data?... 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 kelpdiver 2 #157 October 18, 2007 Quotein Florida it's a felony for a gun owner to be careless... How exactly is that phrased? It's hard to codify 'don't be a dumbass.' Do you make all the basic gun handling rules into laws? I don't have kids, so I don't need to protect against that sort of concern. If I owned instead of renting, I'd get a safe I could bolt to the floor. But I wouldn't put everything inside of it - what's the point of a gun for defense if you have to remove it from the safe and/or trigger lock? Nonetheless, when I read about how a teenage kid points a gun at his friend, pulls the trigger, and kills him, I wonder if it's always an accident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #158 October 18, 2007 Quotemaybe criminal negligence on the part of the owner? Yes. Which is why I suggest that your statement is oxymoronic. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 801 #159 October 18, 2007 Oops...I was mistaken! Specifically in regards to children, I was under the impression it was written to attempt to prevent access to weapons by those it would be illegal for the to have a gun in their possesion....but alas, only children. State law holds gun owners responsible if they leave a gun easily accessible to a child under 16 years old and the child uses the gun to injure or threaten someone. In addition, individual counties may strengthen their CAP law by requiring gun owners to lock up firearms when not under an adults control, in homes where children are present. Miami-Dade County and the City of South Miami have adopted such ordinances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,996 #160 October 18, 2007 >Dr. John Kallend Do you Own a Firearm? No spamming. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #161 October 18, 2007 Otay Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #162 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Well, golly gee, it seems that Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, and New Orleans metro areas ALL have higher homicide rates than NYC metro area according to the 2006 UCR. Houston and NO are far higher. There goes mnealtx's theory. Whoda Thunkit? No externalities involved with those two cities, now? You should be less transparent. Did you actually read mnealtx's posts to which this was a response? Thought not. He compared NYC to the bucolic, pastoral state of Vermont. I think the externalities in THAT comparison make mine look trifling. Nice dodge, Doc. Since you're having problems with the concept, I'll explain. I admit, I took a tangent on the state I used for comparison - mostly due to DC's mayor saying that the gun problem in DC was due to the proximity to VA, which has less restrictive gun laws than DC (as does most of the rest of the country). Now - since you assert that availability of guns are the cause of crime, and Vermont (and Alaska) have the most lax gun control laws (at least in regards to the carry of weapons), then VT should have been a seething mass of crime...all those guns!! NOW, since you can't say that, you try to talk about externalities - strikingly similar to how the pro-2nd folks keep asserting that it's about the CRIMINAL, not the tool they use.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ripple 0 #163 October 19, 2007 Quote NYC Crime Rates 2005-2006(from UCR) Year - Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault 2005 25932 238 676 11393 13625 2006 25132 266 662 10842 13362 Slight reductions in most categories, more murders. Overall violent crime rate dropped from 320/100k to 310/100k. NYC has had a gun ban for *decades*, so I doubt that the recent decline is due to that, to be perfectly honest. Let's compare to Vermont - a state which has NO restriction on concealed carry (or any other carry, for that matter) and which shares a border with NY. If the availability of guns is the problem, then crime should be higher in VT. Unfortunately, the information I have for Vermont is only for 2005. Here's the stats for the largest city listed. Essex, VT Year - Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault 2005 16 0 2 3 11 That equates to 83.7/100k violent crime rate. If it truly were due to the availability of guns, I would expect that Vermont would have a MUCH higher crime rate. FYI - due to the ability of anyone to edit a Wiki entry, it's usually not regarded as a valid source for research. Thank you, that's interesting and helped me see the picture far more clearly. As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #164 October 19, 2007 QuoteAs far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... The problem is that it's easily changed by anyone. It's not a bad starting point for ideas and other places to look for hard info, however...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #165 October 19, 2007 QuoteHow about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data? How nice. I ask you for supporting information - you (essentially) tell me to fuck off - and instead of asking me for supporting information, you accuse me of being a liar. Then again, we've seen your lies. Here's my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm This whole exchange has a familiar ring. You use outdated information, from when most (if not all) crime levels were significantly higher than current levels, to support your position. Then you have choice phrases like "crime is on its way up again", conveniently sidestepping the fact that the Violent Crime rate dropped every consecutive year from 1991 to 2004. The murder rate dropped every consecutive year from 1993 to 2000. The 2004 rate was the same as 2000. Overall, the crime situation in this country is dramatically better than just about any year in the 80s or 90s. Saying "crime is on its way up again" is kind of like saying "gas prices are on their way down again" because pump prices dropped from $3.15 to $3.12. Technically you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite misleading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #166 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteHow about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data? How nice. I ask you for supporting information - you (essentially) tell me to fuck off - and instead of asking me for supporting information, you accuse me of being a liar. Then again, we've seen your lies. Here's my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm This whole exchange has a familiar ring. You use outdated information, from when most (if not all) crime levels were significantly higher than current levels, to support your position. Then you have choice phrases like "crime is on its way up again", conveniently sidestepping the fact that the Violent Crime rate dropped every consecutive year from 1991 to 2004. The murder rate dropped every consecutive year from 1993 to 2000. The 2004 rate was the same as 2000. Overall, the crime situation in this country is dramatically better than just about any year in the 80s or 90s. Saying "crime is on its way up again" is kind of like saying "gas prices are on their way down again" because pump prices dropped from $3.15 to $3.12. Technically you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite misleading. Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years.... 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 #167 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Not in my classes, as a primary source. It is very good for locating primary sources, though.... 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 NCclimber 0 #168 October 19, 2007 Quote Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years. Love the cherry picking, Chief Over the last 15 years: Burglary is down 42% Violent Crime is down 37% Murder is down 38% Robbery is down 45% Considering just about every crime rate is now significantly lower than the period used for your 300,000 guns stolen/yr. claim, do you really think it's intellectually honest to claim that figure is accurate for the present? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #169 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years. Love the cherry picking, Chief Over the last 15 years: Burglary is down 42% Violent Crime is down 37% Murder is down 38% Robbery is down 45% Considering just about every crime rate is now significantly lower than the period used for your 300,000 guns stolen/yr. claim, do you really think it's intellectually honest to claim that figure is accurate for the present? Ha ha 12 years, 15 years, make up your mind. What happened to your "violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago" claim then? What happened to 12 years (that YOU chose)? Now you've gone to 15 years, still cant make "1/2", and you accuse ME of cherry picking. A little help with arithmetic, 10 is closer to 12 than 15 is. Burglaries are down 11.2% in 10 years per the FBI UCR Table 1A. If you have any better data on gun thefts than the number I quoted (more than 300,000 per year, source US DoJ) why don't YOU provide it for us instead of whining about my source and leading us on a merry dance with your red herring on violent crime rates. Edited to add - your numbers are all higher than the FBI UCR data (link given previously). You have a more reliable source of actual data (not estimates) than the FBI?... 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 NCclimber 0 #170 October 19, 2007 Quote A little help with arithmetic, 10 is closer to 12 than 15 is. Burglaries are down 11.2% in 10 years Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #171 October 19, 2007 The DOJ also reports that the average annual handgun homicides between 1987 and 1991 was 10,600. They also state average annual number of victimizations in which victims used firearms to defend themselves or their property between 1987 and 1992 was 62,200 for violent crimes and 82,500 for all crimes. Further, they make this statement: "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims' injury outcomes." "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #172 October 19, 2007 I carry a gun and I have never been burgled, mugged, robbed, or a victim of violent crime, so my rate is 0%. That's good enough for me. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ripple 0 #173 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote Quote As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Not in my classes, as a primary source. It is very good for locating primary sources, though. Um, I think we're getting a little too hung up on Wikipedia in this instance. I was merely using it to illustrate a question I had, not prove a point. Although.... pm sent Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites digame 0 #174 October 19, 2007 How is he spamming?. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NelKel 0 #175 October 20, 2007 : Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns? And also.... Do Americans still think they need an armed populous/millitia to deter any potential attackers from trying to invade their country? do they think their armed forces won't be able to cope on their own if they are attacked and so will need the help of the gun toting members of the public to help them? <<< The price should be paid by the parents for their lack of parneting. My Father taught me at a young age to respect firearms, game hunting, the laws that govern firearms, and the laws of GOD. We have a GODless generation of unrespectful youth that are the pride of their parents lack of gaurdianship. If .....the child were to use a bomb, poison, or a BIG hunting knife to kill students because gun were illegal would you want to close all the manufactures of chemicals or knife makers? Perhaps we could all start using chopstiks instead of steak knives. I feel horribaly for thoes sdtudents and parents that were hurt or killed in school shootings. But Guns don't kill..your childern do! Judging from the way you wrote (Do Americans still think ,do they think their armed forces ,invade their country). I take it your a foreniger. Perhaps you should seek citizenship, then run for election where you could HELP to change OUR laws. Until then you should worry about your own. You should look in your back yard at you own childern, raise them properly to respect life. That is what you should do. It seems to me that most Americans understand this. WE are the ones who have the right to bear arms and life liberty and persuit of happness. That is for us to enjoy and you to long for. That is just the way it is. It is our responsibility to raise our childer right, and to teach them to protect thoes right. I would gladly assist our armed forces and police in protecting our homeland from invaders, with out question I would die for my childern, and our rights under OUR constitution. Hundreds of years ago China invented blackpowder, perhaps they are to blame for all of this. If the massacres were done by black belt ninja's who were 13 years old would your comment be that martial arts should be banned? I think not. Your just a gun hater. It is because you just don't understand the freedom of this country. Ultamatly...YOU are responsibal for the actions of your children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #157 October 18, 2007 Quotein Florida it's a felony for a gun owner to be careless... How exactly is that phrased? It's hard to codify 'don't be a dumbass.' Do you make all the basic gun handling rules into laws? I don't have kids, so I don't need to protect against that sort of concern. If I owned instead of renting, I'd get a safe I could bolt to the floor. But I wouldn't put everything inside of it - what's the point of a gun for defense if you have to remove it from the safe and/or trigger lock? Nonetheless, when I read about how a teenage kid points a gun at his friend, pulls the trigger, and kills him, I wonder if it's always an accident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #158 October 18, 2007 Quotemaybe criminal negligence on the part of the owner? Yes. Which is why I suggest that your statement is oxymoronic. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #159 October 18, 2007 Oops...I was mistaken! Specifically in regards to children, I was under the impression it was written to attempt to prevent access to weapons by those it would be illegal for the to have a gun in their possesion....but alas, only children. State law holds gun owners responsible if they leave a gun easily accessible to a child under 16 years old and the child uses the gun to injure or threaten someone. In addition, individual counties may strengthen their CAP law by requiring gun owners to lock up firearms when not under an adults control, in homes where children are present. Miami-Dade County and the City of South Miami have adopted such ordinances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,996 #160 October 18, 2007 >Dr. John Kallend Do you Own a Firearm? No spamming. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #162 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Well, golly gee, it seems that Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, and New Orleans metro areas ALL have higher homicide rates than NYC metro area according to the 2006 UCR. Houston and NO are far higher. There goes mnealtx's theory. Whoda Thunkit? No externalities involved with those two cities, now? You should be less transparent. Did you actually read mnealtx's posts to which this was a response? Thought not. He compared NYC to the bucolic, pastoral state of Vermont. I think the externalities in THAT comparison make mine look trifling. Nice dodge, Doc. Since you're having problems with the concept, I'll explain. I admit, I took a tangent on the state I used for comparison - mostly due to DC's mayor saying that the gun problem in DC was due to the proximity to VA, which has less restrictive gun laws than DC (as does most of the rest of the country). Now - since you assert that availability of guns are the cause of crime, and Vermont (and Alaska) have the most lax gun control laws (at least in regards to the carry of weapons), then VT should have been a seething mass of crime...all those guns!! NOW, since you can't say that, you try to talk about externalities - strikingly similar to how the pro-2nd folks keep asserting that it's about the CRIMINAL, not the tool they use.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripple 0 #163 October 19, 2007 Quote NYC Crime Rates 2005-2006(from UCR) Year - Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault 2005 25932 238 676 11393 13625 2006 25132 266 662 10842 13362 Slight reductions in most categories, more murders. Overall violent crime rate dropped from 320/100k to 310/100k. NYC has had a gun ban for *decades*, so I doubt that the recent decline is due to that, to be perfectly honest. Let's compare to Vermont - a state which has NO restriction on concealed carry (or any other carry, for that matter) and which shares a border with NY. If the availability of guns is the problem, then crime should be higher in VT. Unfortunately, the information I have for Vermont is only for 2005. Here's the stats for the largest city listed. Essex, VT Year - Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault 2005 16 0 2 3 11 That equates to 83.7/100k violent crime rate. If it truly were due to the availability of guns, I would expect that Vermont would have a MUCH higher crime rate. FYI - due to the ability of anyone to edit a Wiki entry, it's usually not regarded as a valid source for research. Thank you, that's interesting and helped me see the picture far more clearly. As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #164 October 19, 2007 QuoteAs far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... The problem is that it's easily changed by anyone. It's not a bad starting point for ideas and other places to look for hard info, however...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #165 October 19, 2007 QuoteHow about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data? How nice. I ask you for supporting information - you (essentially) tell me to fuck off - and instead of asking me for supporting information, you accuse me of being a liar. Then again, we've seen your lies. Here's my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm This whole exchange has a familiar ring. You use outdated information, from when most (if not all) crime levels were significantly higher than current levels, to support your position. Then you have choice phrases like "crime is on its way up again", conveniently sidestepping the fact that the Violent Crime rate dropped every consecutive year from 1991 to 2004. The murder rate dropped every consecutive year from 1993 to 2000. The 2004 rate was the same as 2000. Overall, the crime situation in this country is dramatically better than just about any year in the 80s or 90s. Saying "crime is on its way up again" is kind of like saying "gas prices are on their way down again" because pump prices dropped from $3.15 to $3.12. Technically you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite misleading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #166 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteHow about you do your own homework for a change. PS according the FBI 2006 UCR, violent crime is NOT 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago. Where did you fabricate get your incorrect data? How nice. I ask you for supporting information - you (essentially) tell me to fuck off - and instead of asking me for supporting information, you accuse me of being a liar. Then again, we've seen your lies. Here's my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm This whole exchange has a familiar ring. You use outdated information, from when most (if not all) crime levels were significantly higher than current levels, to support your position. Then you have choice phrases like "crime is on its way up again", conveniently sidestepping the fact that the Violent Crime rate dropped every consecutive year from 1991 to 2004. The murder rate dropped every consecutive year from 1993 to 2000. The 2004 rate was the same as 2000. Overall, the crime situation in this country is dramatically better than just about any year in the 80s or 90s. Saying "crime is on its way up again" is kind of like saying "gas prices are on their way down again" because pump prices dropped from $3.15 to $3.12. Technically you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite misleading. Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years.... 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 #167 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Not in my classes, as a primary source. It is very good for locating primary sources, though.... 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
NCclimber 0 #168 October 19, 2007 Quote Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years. Love the cherry picking, Chief Over the last 15 years: Burglary is down 42% Violent Crime is down 37% Murder is down 38% Robbery is down 45% Considering just about every crime rate is now significantly lower than the period used for your 300,000 guns stolen/yr. claim, do you really think it's intellectually honest to claim that figure is accurate for the present? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #169 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote Lots of "estimates" in your source, Chief. Go right to the FBI UCR and try again. According to the FBI UCR violent crime dropped 31% over the 12 year period, not in half. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html And what EXACTLY does the violent crime rate have to do with determining how many firearms are stolen annually? Burglaries are only down 11.2% in the last 10 years. Love the cherry picking, Chief Over the last 15 years: Burglary is down 42% Violent Crime is down 37% Murder is down 38% Robbery is down 45% Considering just about every crime rate is now significantly lower than the period used for your 300,000 guns stolen/yr. claim, do you really think it's intellectually honest to claim that figure is accurate for the present? Ha ha 12 years, 15 years, make up your mind. What happened to your "violent crime is 1/2 of what it was 12 years ago" claim then? What happened to 12 years (that YOU chose)? Now you've gone to 15 years, still cant make "1/2", and you accuse ME of cherry picking. A little help with arithmetic, 10 is closer to 12 than 15 is. Burglaries are down 11.2% in 10 years per the FBI UCR Table 1A. If you have any better data on gun thefts than the number I quoted (more than 300,000 per year, source US DoJ) why don't YOU provide it for us instead of whining about my source and leading us on a merry dance with your red herring on violent crime rates. Edited to add - your numbers are all higher than the FBI UCR data (link given previously). You have a more reliable source of actual data (not estimates) than the FBI?... 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
NCclimber 0 #170 October 19, 2007 Quote A little help with arithmetic, 10 is closer to 12 than 15 is. Burglaries are down 11.2% in 10 years Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #171 October 19, 2007 The DOJ also reports that the average annual handgun homicides between 1987 and 1991 was 10,600. They also state average annual number of victimizations in which victims used firearms to defend themselves or their property between 1987 and 1992 was 62,200 for violent crimes and 82,500 for all crimes. Further, they make this statement: "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims' injury outcomes." "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #172 October 19, 2007 I carry a gun and I have never been burgled, mugged, robbed, or a victim of violent crime, so my rate is 0%. That's good enough for me. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripple 0 #173 October 19, 2007 Quote Quote Quote As far as the wikipedia comment, strangely, it is regarded as a valid source in academia.... Not in my classes, as a primary source. It is very good for locating primary sources, though. Um, I think we're getting a little too hung up on Wikipedia in this instance. I was merely using it to illustrate a question I had, not prove a point. Although.... pm sent Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
digame 0 #174 October 19, 2007 How is he spamming?. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NelKel 0 #175 October 20, 2007 : Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns? And also.... Do Americans still think they need an armed populous/millitia to deter any potential attackers from trying to invade their country? do they think their armed forces won't be able to cope on their own if they are attacked and so will need the help of the gun toting members of the public to help them? <<< The price should be paid by the parents for their lack of parneting. My Father taught me at a young age to respect firearms, game hunting, the laws that govern firearms, and the laws of GOD. We have a GODless generation of unrespectful youth that are the pride of their parents lack of gaurdianship. If .....the child were to use a bomb, poison, or a BIG hunting knife to kill students because gun were illegal would you want to close all the manufactures of chemicals or knife makers? Perhaps we could all start using chopstiks instead of steak knives. I feel horribaly for thoes sdtudents and parents that were hurt or killed in school shootings. But Guns don't kill..your childern do! Judging from the way you wrote (Do Americans still think ,do they think their armed forces ,invade their country). I take it your a foreniger. Perhaps you should seek citizenship, then run for election where you could HELP to change OUR laws. Until then you should worry about your own. You should look in your back yard at you own childern, raise them properly to respect life. That is what you should do. It seems to me that most Americans understand this. WE are the ones who have the right to bear arms and life liberty and persuit of happness. That is for us to enjoy and you to long for. That is just the way it is. It is our responsibility to raise our childer right, and to teach them to protect thoes right. I would gladly assist our armed forces and police in protecting our homeland from invaders, with out question I would die for my childern, and our rights under OUR constitution. Hundreds of years ago China invented blackpowder, perhaps they are to blame for all of this. If the massacres were done by black belt ninja's who were 13 years old would your comment be that martial arts should be banned? I think not. Your just a gun hater. It is because you just don't understand the freedom of this country. Ultamatly...YOU are responsibal for the actions of your children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
