Spike in gun deaths after BG checks eliminated

[smooth]

The article came from Rolling Stone. It was, by definition, written by someone with an axe to grind.

US is also pretty high up in the rape stats and middle of the pack--behind a good many developed countries with more restrictive gun laws for other violent crimes--but that doesn't fit as easily into the anti-gun narrative, so RS won't mention it.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

15M was an example number to show the sleight of hand RS was trying to use to confuse "rate" and "number of incidents".

I'm unclear what you think that pdf indicates in regards to supporting your points.

In terms of homicides, Mexico is first, then Estonia, with US third. We're 4th in rape, not even remotely close to "middle of the pack."

I corrected you on the actual population levels of the countries at issue. The 15m population figure you were trying to make your point with isn't relevant because you made it up. You aren't making any point at all when you just make up a population number in an attempt to show how rates don't matter--and the situation is worse when you're completely wrong and the population numbers are actually fairly similar. Aside from that, it doesn't matter because *rates* are calculated relative to the population level. Unless you're trying to argue that less people in a country somehow makes for more crime the example you gave is arguing the opposite of your point. (That is, you argued "of course those places have a higher murder rate, they have less people" which doesn't make sense)


Also, using the UCR for comparison tends to create a substantial misunderstanding of what's going on.

Our national average data masks local hotspots of crime. Rolling Stone didn't compare total US rates, you'll notice, they specifically pointed out that places like Detroit and New Orleans have stratospheric murder rates.

In a place like Detroit, where the murder rate is hovering around 60% (as opposed to our national rate of 5%), a young male has a better chance of coming home alive when he leaves his house by flipping a coin.

The UCR data is problematic in that it compresses cities like Irvine, CA (0 murders -- well actually I think there might have been 2 last year because that cop murdered those two people. you guys probably remember the news story...and that speaks to how rare murder is in the wealthy parts of the OC) with places like Santa Ana (about a dozen murders) and Long Beach (around 40 murders). It gives the impression that the region is relatively safe compared to other places when the actual reality of it is that certain cities within the region are much, much safer than communities bordering the safe cities.

[mrsleeve]

I am sure your aware that unwanted sexual interactions are the MOST unreported crime the world over right.... A UK study from a couple of years back put the estimates between 75% & 95% go UNREPORTED, Could it stand to reason that here in the USA more of those instances are reported than in all those "other" countries....

[dewme5]

What makes it Ok in your mind to treat everyone as a criminal?

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

[mrsleeve]

you are not talking to me are you

[The Dark Side of Will]

I'm unclear what you think that pdf indicates in regards to supporting your points.

In terms of homicides, Mexico is first, then Estonia, with US third. We're 4th in rape, not even remotely close to "middle of the pack."

I corrected you on the actual population levels of the countries at issue. The 15m population figure you were trying to make your point with isn't relevant because you made it up. You aren't making any point at all when you just make up a population number in an attempt to show how rates don't matter--and the situation is worse when you're completely wrong and the population numbers are actually fairly similar. Aside from that, it doesn't matter because *rates* are calculated relative to the population level. Unless you're trying to argue that less people in a country somehow makes for more crime the example you gave is arguing the opposite of your point. (That is, you argued "of course those places have a higher murder rate, they have less people" which doesn't make sense)


Also, using the UCR for comparison tends to create a substantial misunderstanding of what's going on.

Our national average data masks local hotspots of crime. Rolling Stone didn't compare total US rates, you'll notice, they specifically pointed out that places like Detroit and New Orleans have stratospheric murder rates.

In a place like Detroit, where the murder rate is hovering around 60% (as opposed to our national rate of 5%), a young male has a better chance of coming home alive when he leaves his house by flipping a coin.

The UCR data is problematic in that it compresses cities like Irvine, CA (0 murders -- well actually I think there might have been 2 last year because that cop murdered those two people. you guys probably remember the news story...and that speaks to how rare murder is in the wealthy parts of the OC) with places like Santa Ana (about a dozen murders) and Long Beach (around 40 murders). It gives the impression that the region is relatively safe compared to other places when the actual reality of it is that certain cities within the region are much, much safer than communities bordering the safe cities.

I didn't say the US is middle of the pack in terms of rape. I said we were middle of the pack, behind many other developed countries with more restrictive gun laws, in violent crime. E.g. robbery and assault, graphed on page 6.

The 15M number was an example to demonstrate the kind of games that RS plays with numbers when they deliberately conflate rates and number of incidents.

The .pdf is from UN stats, and was the result of a quick google.

Average data always masks the granularity of higher resolution data. Not sure what your point is.

Actually, you seem to have made mine for me. Violent crime is related to poverty and race FAR more directly than it's related to the presence of guns.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Here's some info on how gun violence actually looks in one of the most violent cities in the US.

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/April-2014/Chicago-Gun-Violence-Big-Numbers-But-a-Surprisingly-Small-Network/

Without that deep analysis, it's all too easy to say that everyone needs to be made defenseless because of the asinine idea that there are "too many guns"

Lifted from this thread: http://www.corner-carvers.com/forums...39383&page=104

[smooth]

It baffles me how you can read an article that completely undermines your point, but because you are so cocksure about your opinion, you don't even recognize that the "evidence" you post in support of your position is from someone who disagrees with you pretty much 180 degrees.

[einhander]

It baffles me how you can read an article that completely undermines your point, but because you are so cocksure about your opinion, you don't even recognize that the "evidence" you post in support of your position is from someone who disagrees with you pretty much 180 degrees.

Srsly. Reading comprehension is in short supply up in hurrr.

[The Dark Side of Will]

It baffles me how you can read an article that completely undermines your point, but because you are so cocksure about your opinion, you don't even recognize that the "evidence" you post in support of your position is from someone who disagrees with you pretty much 180 degrees.

It doesn't matter what that individual thinks. What the evidence says is what matters.

What matters is that it would be a lot easier and more effective for crime prevention to help that 4% of Chicago's population that is in such desperate circumstnaces than it is to restrict the rights of the remaining 2,600,000, gather power to city hall and militarize the police force.

But... which one's happening? Oh yeah, the one that makes the people in power more powerful and doesn't help the people who need help.

The biggest thing I disagree with the researcher (I really don't give a shit what the journalist thinks) about the role of government. He goes straight to government with the "no one agency does it all" comment, but I think that more choice in schools, more freedom for non-profits to work is the answer.

[smooth]

It doesn't matter what that individual thinks. What the evidence says is what matters.

What matters is that it would be a lot easier and more effective for crime prevention to help that 4% of Chicago's population that is in such desperate circumstnaces than it is to restrict the rights of the remaining 2,600,000, gather power to city hall and militarize the police force.

if you care about the evidence then you wouldn't be sitting here arguing against background checks in this thread when the article you posted laid the research out for why and how the Brady Bill was a huge success in reducing overall gun deaths. you don't understand the issues fully so you think you're posting "evidence" in support of your political position. But that doesn't mean you actually care about the evidence. It's evident, at least to me, that it's not as if you'd actually change your position once you learned what the data says.

also, how do background checks restrict the rights of 2.6 million people? Are you the same person who was misusing the 15m figure? Could you please open the census website next time you start opining about issues related to population sizes? It's annoying to read your comment about caring about evidence but misusing it and misunderstanding it every time you post.

[einhander]

We should ban gun sales for five years.

[z31maniac]

We should ban gun sales for five years.

Come on, you're not even putting any effort into trolling now.

[mrsleeve]

We should ban gun sales for five years.

Should I explain to you why we shouldn't ???? ;)

[einhander]

Too easy...

[einhander]

Come on, you're not even putting any effort into trolling now.

I got sleeve though.

We killed this thread. It needed some entertainment.