Since D.C. Gun Ban Lifted...

[PoliticalChic]

Once again PC shows that starting a meaningful thread is almost impossible if you are a right-wing, neocon whackjob...

It's just a case of the facts of the OP not supporting the derived opinion in the OP.

Such a condition normally results from the process of reaching a conclusion before you have the facts, because you like the conclusion, and then working backwards trying to find evidence that supports the conclusion you like.

It becomes more and more difficulult to find an area- any area of endeavor- in which you approach even an average level of erudition...

Not in your writing, not in your appreciation of politics and social science, and now even the hard science of statistics or mathematics.

Have someone with a college education help you with this paragraph from the OP:
"… Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008."

a) Do you dispute the FBI statistics?

b) Do you understand why the time period of 2008-2009 was selected?

c) Did you note that "murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people" thus encompassing both nation-wide trends and, in case folks like you would claim that smaller venues have different situations, those of smaller locales.

d) Are you able to comprehend the relationship between guns and murder rates? Do you agree that there is some correlation between the two?

e) As a public school grad, I'm sure that you use a calculator, so use one, and you will ascertain that D.C. murder rate was a 250% improvement over the national rate, and 300% over similar sized cities?

f) Even without the use of a chi-square test, or the use of a Poisson Distribution, one glance should varify that this is a statistically significant difference.

g) Based on the above, do you understand what a clown you appear to be when you state " facts of the OP not supporting ..."


The only conclusion one can draw is that you search - high and low- for a reason to argue with my posts.
Advice: try to understand them first and this game will be more interesting for all concerned.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again PC shows that starting a meaningful thread is almost impossible if you are a right-wing, neocon whackjob...

It's just a case of the facts of the OP not supporting the derived opinion in the OP.

Such a condition normally results from the process of reaching a conclusion before you have the facts, because you like the conclusion, and then working backwards trying to find evidence that supports the conclusion you like.

It becomes more and more difficulult to find an area- any area of endeavor- in which you approach even an average level of erudition...

Not in your writing, not in your appreciation of politics and social science, and now even the hard science of statistics or mathematics.

Have someone with a college education help you with this paragraph from the OP:
"… Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008."

a) Do you dispute the FBI statistics?

b) Do you understand why the time period of 2008-2009 was selected?

c) Did you note that "murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people" thus encompassing both nation-wide trends and, in case folks like you would claim that smaller venues have different situations, those of smaller locales.

d) Are you able to comprehend the relationship between guns and murder rates? Do you agree that there is some correlation between the two?

e) As a public school grad, I'm sure that you use a calculator, so use one, and you will ascertain that D.C. murder rate was a 250% improvement over the national rate, and 300% over similar sized cities?

f) Even without the use of a chi-square test, or the use of a Poisson Distribution, one glance should varify that this is a statistically significant difference.

g) Based on the above, do you understand what a clown you appear to be when you state " facts of the OP not supporting ..."


The only conclusion one can draw is that you search - high and low- for a reason to argue with my posts.
Advice: try to understand them first and this game will be more interesting for all concerned.

You show NO cause and effect. I posted 20 years of homicide data from DC. There are double digit declines year over year in several cases.

An overall 20 year downtrend, with only 1 year of that trend post SCOTUS, is more evidentiary in proving that the SCOTUS ruling was in all likelihood NOT material to the decline.

I researched the DC police's explanations for the decline. I could not find any that attribute the decline to the SCOTUS ruling. An adjacent county, IN MARYLAND, had a proportionately similar decline 2008 to 2009.

You can filibuster all you want but you're not debating. Obfuscation is not debate.

Show cause and effect. Without that, you might as well be claiming that homicides declined in DC in 2009 because Barack Obama was elected president.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's just a case of the facts of the OP not supporting the derived opinion in the OP.

Such a condition normally results from the process of reaching a conclusion before you have the facts, because you like the conclusion, and then working backwards trying to find evidence that supports the conclusion you like.

It becomes more and more difficulult to find an area- any area of endeavor- in which you approach even an average level of erudition...

Not in your writing, not in your appreciation of politics and social science, and now even the hard science of statistics or mathematics.

Have someone with a college education help you with this paragraph from the OP:
"… Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008."

a) Do you dispute the FBI statistics?

b) Do you understand why the time period of 2008-2009 was selected?

c) Did you note that "murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people" thus encompassing both nation-wide trends and, in case folks like you would claim that smaller venues have different situations, those of smaller locales.

d) Are you able to comprehend the relationship between guns and murder rates? Do you agree that there is some correlation between the two?

e) As a public school grad, I'm sure that you use a calculator, so use one, and you will ascertain that D.C. murder rate was a 250% improvement over the national rate, and 300% over similar sized cities?

f) Even without the use of a chi-square test, or the use of a Poisson Distribution, one glance should varify that this is a statistically significant difference.

g) Based on the above, do you understand what a clown you appear to be when you state " facts of the OP not supporting ..."


The only conclusion one can draw is that you search - high and low- for a reason to argue with my posts.
Advice: try to understand them first and this game will be more interesting for all concerned.

You show NO cause and effect. I posted 20 years of homicide data from DC. There are double digit declines year over year in several cases.

An overall 20 year downtrend, with only 1 year of that trend post SCOTUS, is more evidentiary in proving that the SCOTUS ruling was in all likelihood NOT material to the decline.

I researched the DC police's explanations for the decline. I could not find any that attribute the decline to the SCOTUS ruling. An adjacent county, IN MARYLAND, had a proportionately similar decline 2008 to 2009.

You can filibuster all you want but you're not debating. Obfuscation is not debate.

Show cause and effect. Without that, you might as well be claiming that homicides declined in DC in 2009 because Barack Obama was elected president.

Back in high school, I didn't attribute reality to the example that my science teacher gave for evolution, that of a monkey siting at a keyboard randomly striking keys, and, given infinite time, would eventually type out the works of Shakespeare...

Until I saw your post.

 

[Big Fitz]

You mean like Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq?

All heavily armed societies.

You should move there to enjoy their polite society.

How many warlords are there in Israel, Switzerland and the US?

No, you cannot play moral equivalency with peaceful nations and WAR ZONES you dim bulb. Can you even say there is a functional government in those nations right now? You leftists claim all three are in full blown civil war.

Talk about intellectually bankrupt false analogies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It becomes more and more difficulult to find an area- any area of endeavor- in which you approach even an average level of erudition...

Not in your writing, not in your appreciation of politics and social science, and now even the hard science of statistics or mathematics.

Have someone with a college education help you with this paragraph from the OP:
"… Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008."

a) Do you dispute the FBI statistics?

b) Do you understand why the time period of 2008-2009 was selected?

c) Did you note that "murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people" thus encompassing both nation-wide trends and, in case folks like you would claim that smaller venues have different situations, those of smaller locales.

d) Are you able to comprehend the relationship between guns and murder rates? Do you agree that there is some correlation between the two?

e) As a public school grad, I'm sure that you use a calculator, so use one, and you will ascertain that D.C. murder rate was a 250% improvement over the national rate, and 300% over similar sized cities?

f) Even without the use of a chi-square test, or the use of a Poisson Distribution, one glance should varify that this is a statistically significant difference.

g) Based on the above, do you understand what a clown you appear to be when you state " facts of the OP not supporting ..."


The only conclusion one can draw is that you search - high and low- for a reason to argue with my posts.
Advice: try to understand them first and this game will be more interesting for all concerned.

You show NO cause and effect. I posted 20 years of homicide data from DC. There are double digit declines year over year in several cases.

An overall 20 year downtrend, with only 1 year of that trend post SCOTUS, is more evidentiary in proving that the SCOTUS ruling was in all likelihood NOT material to the decline.

I researched the DC police's explanations for the decline. I could not find any that attribute the decline to the SCOTUS ruling. An adjacent county, IN MARYLAND, had a proportionately similar decline 2008 to 2009.

You can filibuster all you want but you're not debating. Obfuscation is not debate.

Show cause and effect. Without that, you might as well be claiming that homicides declined in DC in 2009 because Barack Obama was elected president.

Back in high school, I didn't attribute reality to the example that my science teacher gave for evolution, that of a monkey siting at a keyboard randomly striking keys, and, given infinite time, would eventually type out the works of Shakespeare...

Until I saw your post.

Homicides dropped 25% in DC between 96 and 97. What do you attribute that to?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean like Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq?

All heavily armed societies.

You should move there to enjoy their polite society.

How many warlords are there in Israel, Switzerland and the US?

No, you cannot play moral equivalency with peaceful nations and WAR ZONES you dim bulb. Can you even say there is a functional government in those nations right now? You leftists claim all three are in full blown civil war.

Talk about intellectually bankrupt false analogies.

Japan allows virtually no private ownership of handguns and has extremely low rates of gun violence.

 

[Big Fitz]

You mean like Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq?

All heavily armed societies.

You should move there to enjoy their polite society.

How many warlords are there in Israel, Switzerland and the US?

No, you cannot play moral equivalency with peaceful nations and WAR ZONES you dim bulb. Can you even say there is a functional government in those nations right now? You leftists claim all three are in full blown civil war.

Talk about intellectually bankrupt false analogies.

Japan allows virtually no private ownership of handguns and has extremely low rates of gun violence.

Look at stabbing deaths and assaults.

When Australia banned guns, home invasions went up 1400%. Assaults went up 500%, particularly those with knives and other melee weapons.

Historically, look at most martial art weapons. They're based on or actually WERE farm implements. People will arm up in other ways if they so intend to do violence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You show NO cause and effect. I posted 20 years of homicide data from DC. There are double digit declines year over year in several cases.

An overall 20 year downtrend, with only 1 year of that trend post SCOTUS, is more evidentiary in proving that the SCOTUS ruling was in all likelihood NOT material to the decline.

I researched the DC police's explanations for the decline. I could not find any that attribute the decline to the SCOTUS ruling. An adjacent county, IN MARYLAND, had a proportionately similar decline 2008 to 2009.

You can filibuster all you want but you're not debating. Obfuscation is not debate.

Show cause and effect. Without that, you might as well be claiming that homicides declined in DC in 2009 because Barack Obama was elected president.

Back in high school, I didn't attribute reality to the example that my science teacher gave for evolution, that of a monkey siting at a keyboard randomly striking keys, and, given infinite time, would eventually type out the works of Shakespeare...

Until I saw your post.

Homicides dropped 25% in DC between 96 and 97. What do you attribute that to?

I understand why you wish to, but I don't care to change the subject.

 

[daveman]

Can gun control supporters please explain to me how you plan to get criminals to obey they law?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Back in high school, I didn't attribute reality to the example that my science teacher gave for evolution, that of a monkey siting at a keyboard randomly striking keys, and, given infinite time, would eventually type out the works of Shakespeare...

Until I saw your post.

Homicides dropped 25% in DC between 96 and 97. What do you attribute that to?

I understand why you wish to, but I don't care to change the subject.

The central point of the subject was the 25% drop in homicides year over year. You made a claim that it was caused by the SCOTUS ruling.

I'll repeat my question:

Homicides dropped 25% in DC beetween 96 and 97. What do you attribute that to?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many warlords are there in Israel, Switzerland and the US?

No, you cannot play moral equivalency with peaceful nations and WAR ZONES you dim bulb. Can you even say there is a functional government in those nations right now? You leftists claim all three are in full blown civil war.

Talk about intellectually bankrupt false analogies.

Japan allows virtually no private ownership of handguns and has extremely low rates of gun violence.

Look at stabbing deaths and assaults.

When Australia banned guns, home invasions went up 1400%. Assaults went up 500%, particularly those with knives and other melee weapons.

Historically, look at most martial art weapons. They're based on or actually WERE farm implements. People will arm up in other ways if they so intend to do violence.

No, you were citing the Swiss possession of rifles as being some sort of cause and effect factor in why gun crime is low in Switzerland. I pointed out that Japanese possession of firearms is extremely low, and they also have a very low gun crime rate. If you're going to claim that A causes B, then you must concede that it's valid to claim that C causes B.

A being widespread gun ownership, C being very little gun ownership, B being low rates of gun crime.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can gun control supporters please explain to me how you plan to get criminals to obey they law?

As this thread unintentionally proved, there are ways to reduce gun violence that are not connected to who can or can't own guns.

 

[daveman]

Can gun control supporters please explain to me how you plan to get criminals to obey they law?

As this thread unintentionally proved, there are ways to reduce gun violence that are not connected to who can or can't own guns.

Where did it do that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can gun control supporters please explain to me how you plan to get criminals to obey they law?

As this thread unintentionally proved, there are ways to reduce gun violence that are not connected to who can or can't own guns.

Where did it do that?

Welcome, new member.

Using the tortuous and often devious thought processes, the above poster will say anything to refuse to back down from an alternative premise.
Actually, we must be grateful for his ilk, for without them, this would be an empty echo chamber...and they allow the exposition of the right viewpoint.

Now, back to gun laws:
"there are ways to reduce gun violence that are not connected to who can or can't own guns."

Such as?

Consider the view of the CDC:

In 2003,the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied whether gun control laws actually work including all sorts of gun laws, from bans on types of guns, types of ammunition, licensing and restriction mandates, waiting periods, laws to keep guns from kids, and harsh punishments for violations. Conclusion: no conclusive evidence that gun control laws contribute to decreases in violent crime or suicide. (cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

National Academy of Science, in 2004, published a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun control attempts: they found none of the gun laws reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.( (Firearms and violence: a critical review - Google Books)

In 1997, the English Parliament instituted a gun ban. From 1998 through 2005, the number of deaths and injuries from handguns skyrocketed 340%.
(Ministers 'covered up' gun crime - Times Online)

In 2007, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law considered gun ownership and murder rates in almost every European country, found that countries with more widespread gun ownership had fewer murders, and those with less gun ownership had more murders. (http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/MauserPaper-200611.pdf)

 

[Big Fitz]

Japan allows virtually no private ownership of handguns and has extremely low rates of gun violence.

Look at stabbing deaths and assaults.

When Australia banned guns, home invasions went up 1400%. Assaults went up 500%, particularly those with knives and other melee weapons.

Historically, look at most martial art weapons. They're based on or actually WERE farm implements. People will arm up in other ways if they so intend to do violence.

No, you were citing the Swiss possession of rifles as being some sort of cause and effect factor in why gun crime is low in Switzerland. I pointed out that Japanese possession of firearms is extremely low, and they also have a very low gun crime rate. If you're going to claim that A causes B, then you must concede that it's valid to claim that C causes B.

A being widespread gun ownership, C being very little gun ownership, B being low rates of gun crime.

Oh... NOW we want to start parsing Corollary versus Causation? Huh... love that situational intellectualism.

 

[Big Fitz]

Japan allows virtually no private ownership of handguns and has extremely low rates of gun violence.

Look at stabbing deaths and assaults.

When Australia banned guns, home invasions went up 1400%. Assaults went up 500%, particularly those with knives and other melee weapons.

Historically, look at most martial art weapons. They're based on or actually WERE farm implements. People will arm up in other ways if they so intend to do violence.

No, you were citing the Swiss possession of rifles as being some sort of cause and effect factor in why gun crime is low in Switzerland. I pointed out that Japanese possession of firearms is extremely low, and they also have a very low gun crime rate. If you're going to claim that A causes B, then you must concede that it's valid to claim that C causes B.

A being widespread gun ownership, C being very little gun ownership, B being low rates of gun crime.

Not when you have many examples of gun ownership in the US where when gun ownership increased, crime decreased on almost all levels. What you could see is this:

A does cause B while C may cause B

There are far more examples of C not causing B, at all. Not to mention C increasing B

That's the actual logic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look at stabbing deaths and assaults.

When Australia banned guns, home invasions went up 1400%. Assaults went up 500%, particularly those with knives and other melee weapons.

Historically, look at most martial art weapons. They're based on or actually WERE farm implements. People will arm up in other ways if they so intend to do violence.

No, you were citing the Swiss possession of rifles as being some sort of cause and effect factor in why gun crime is low in Switzerland. I pointed out that Japanese possession of firearms is extremely low, and they also have a very low gun crime rate. If you're going to claim that A causes B, then you must concede that it's valid to claim that C causes B.

A being widespread gun ownership, C being very little gun ownership, B being low rates of gun crime.

Not when you have many examples of gun ownership in the US where when gun ownership increased, crime decreased on almost all levels. What you could see is this:

A does cause B while C may cause B

There are far more examples of C not causing B, at all. Not to mention C increasing B

That's the actual logic.

No. First of all this thread is not an example of what you're claiming because there was nothing more than a post hoc fallacy offered.

Are you of the opinion that putting an assault weapon in every American home is going to decrease gun crime? Swiss style?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look at stabbing deaths and assaults.

When Australia banned guns, home invasions went up 1400%. Assaults went up 500%, particularly those with knives and other melee weapons.

Historically, look at most martial art weapons. They're based on or actually WERE farm implements. People will arm up in other ways if they so intend to do violence.

No, you were citing the Swiss possession of rifles as being some sort of cause and effect factor in why gun crime is low in Switzerland. I pointed out that Japanese possession of firearms is extremely low, and they also have a very low gun crime rate. If you're going to claim that A causes B, then you must concede that it's valid to claim that C causes B.

A being widespread gun ownership, C being very little gun ownership, B being low rates of gun crime.

Oh... NOW we want to start parsing Corollary versus Causation? Huh... love that situational intellectualism.

Why did you cite the Swiss example if you were making a cause and effect argument? Are you backtracking on that now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can gun control supporters please explain to me how you plan to get criminals to obey they law?

As this thread unintentionally proved, there are ways to reduce gun violence that are not connected to who can or can't own guns.

Where did it do that?

When it led me to research the real reasons DC gun crime has been declining for 20 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As this thread unintentionally proved, there are ways to reduce gun violence that are not connected to who can or can't own guns.

Where did it do that?

Welcome, new member.

Using the tortuous and often devious thought processes, the above poster will say anything to refuse to back down from an alternative premise.
Actually, we must be grateful for his ilk, for without them, this would be an empty echo chamber...and they allow the exposition of the right viewpoint.

Now, back to gun laws:
"there are ways to reduce gun violence that are not connected to who can or can't own guns."

Such as?

Consider the view of the CDC:

In 2003,the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied whether gun control laws actually work including all sorts of gun laws, from bans on types of guns, types of ammunition, licensing and restriction mandates, waiting periods, laws to keep guns from kids, and harsh punishments for violations. Conclusion: no conclusive evidence that gun control laws contribute to decreases in violent crime or suicide. (cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

National Academy of Science, in 2004, published a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun control attempts: they found none of the gun laws reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.( (Firearms and violence: a critical review - Google Books)

In 1997, the English Parliament instituted a gun ban. From 1998 through 2005, the number of deaths and injuries from handguns skyrocketed 340%.
(Ministers 'covered up' gun crime - Times Online)

In 2007, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law considered gun ownership and murder rates in almost every European country, found that countries with more widespread gun ownership had fewer murders, and those with less gun ownership had more murders. (http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/MauserPaper-200611.pdf)

Now who's changing the subject?

Back to your claim, that the SCOTUS ruling CAUSED homicides to decline in DC in 2009.

Let's get back to you actually providing some evidence for that claim.