| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/03/2013 12:02:06 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Just depends on your values. |
Is that to say you can not find a single case where tightening gun legislation caused the sort of increase in crime you believe would result in the US, among all the countries that have enacted such laws? Not one example? |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 08:01:15 AM · #202 |
that's good to know. Apparently my generalization of mid America is off base. There is hope for this country.
on a side note it would be great it the constituents voted the bums out. its about time we started telling out politicians they work for us and not the dollar, that's the only way we get the change we want. These career politicians need to go.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2013 08:52:06 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
By the way the bill came in to the NRA. It seems the cost of stopping handgun legislation in the senate came to a modest $8,165,490.00 spread among 45 senators to kill a bill supported by 91% of the American public. Check to see if your senator got his fair share to ignore public opinion. If he or she did, remember who he works for next election.
 |
I know what senators to support.....I see one of my senators was on the list. Maybe my letters to him worked...I still need to work on Landreu though
|
|
|
|
05/03/2013 08:58:14 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Maybe my letters to him worked... |
unless you contributed to that paycheck, i doubt it. |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 09:23:40 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Maybe my letters to him worked... |
unless you contributed to that paycheck, i doubt it. |
I pay taxes....so I have contributed to his paycheck
|
|
|
|
05/03/2013 10:29:59 AM · #206 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Maybe my letters to him worked... |
unless you contributed to that paycheck, i doubt it. |
I pay taxes....so I have contributed to his paycheck |
i throw pennies in a wishing well too. |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 01:10:14 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I pay taxes....so I have contributed to his paycheck |
How much of the $12,531,102.00 Senator Vitter has raised from private sources was yours? Oh you meant the $174,000 he get payed to do the job he is supposed to do? I think the influence is over in the number that is 72 times his salary. |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 01:44:25 PM · #208 |
| i know it will never happen but we really need reform in campaign contributions. |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 01:50:29 PM · #209 |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 01:50:46 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i know it will never happen but we really need reform in campaign contributions. |
the Citizens United decision is killing your country. It is among the most dangerous court decisions you guys have seen. |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 01:54:08 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Mike:
i know it will never happen but we really need reform in campaign contributions. |
the Citizens United decision is killing your country. It is among the most dangerous court decisions you guys have seen. |
People are trying... 13 States trying to overturn Citizens United |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 04:40:54 PM · #212 |
I was listening to the radio on the way home. They were talking about the violent crime rate in Philadelphia.
I always associated violent crime with poverty. Currently NY is 21% and philly is 24% yet phillys violent crime rate is 1/4500, NY is 1/16,000. What the heck is NY doing that us working so well? Seems to me the gun control is part of the equation.
Also NYs annual murder rate before guiluani was 1/2000. After he left office it was 1/500ish.
I'm thinking we have a good model already in place and why are the other cities not following suit? |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 10:54:47 PM · #213 |
Scariest thing yet: 44% of republicans think there might be a need for an "armed rebellion against American government tyranny" I in the next 2 years. pure insanity
Message edited by author 2013-05-03 22:55:48. |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 11:36:29 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Scariest thing yet: 44% of republicans think there might be a need for an "armed rebellion against American government tyranny" I in the next 2 years. pure insanity |
This is interesting. So who are they going to rise up in arms against, actually? Head on down to City Hall and execute the town clerk? Hold the mayor hostage? Take on Congress, perhaps, approximately half of whom are, surprisingly enough, Republicans? Or will they mount an assault on military bases?
Who, exactly, is the "government" against which they wish to rebel? |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 01:46:41 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Mike:
I was listening to the radio on the way home. They were talking about the violent crime rate in Philadelphia.
I always associated violent crime with poverty. Currently NY is 21% and philly is 24% yet phillys violent crime rate is 1/4500, NY is 1/16,000. What the heck is NY doing that us working so well? Seems to me the gun control is part of the equation.
Also NYs annual murder rate before guiluani was 1/2000. After he left office it was 1/500ish.
I'm thinking we have a good model already in place and why are the other cities not following suit? |
There is plenty of discussion about exactly what *has* worked in NYC, and how it can be transferred to other locations. Other cities have tried to replicate NYC's success with mixed results. New York changed a lot of things at the same time, including policing methods, graffiti control, and being on the right side of demographic trends. It's hard to tease out exactly what worked and what was just superfluous. While I agree that the fact that guns are tightly regulated in NYC probably has a positive impact, guns have been tightly regulated in NYC for the past 100 years, and the low violent crime rate is a relatively recent phenomenon. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 02:13:31 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Mike:
I was listening to the radio on the way home. They were talking about the violent crime rate in Philadelphia.
I always associated violent crime with poverty. Currently NY is 21% and philly is 24% yet phillys violent crime rate is 1/4500, NY is 1/16,000. What the heck is NY doing that us working so well? Seems to me the gun control is part of the equation.
Also NYs annual murder rate before guiluani was 1/2000. After he left office it was 1/500ish.
I'm thinking we have a good model already in place and why are the other cities not following suit? |
There is plenty of discussion about exactly what *has* worked in NYC, and how it can be transferred to other locations. Other cities have tried to replicate NYC's success with mixed results. New York changed a lot of things at the same time, including policing methods, graffiti control, and being on the right side of demographic trends. It's hard to tease out exactly what worked and what was just superfluous. While I agree that the fact that guns are tightly regulated in NYC probably has a positive impact, guns have been tightly regulated in NYC for the past 100 years, and the low violent crime rate is a relatively recent phenomenon. |
As I've pointed out previously, Time has a graph that shows NYC crime stats by year and category.
Interestingly, the overall number of homicides has declined strongly in the city, but strangely, the demographics (race, weapon, location, etc) haven't really changed significantly. In other words, you're now less likely to be murdered in NYC than ever before, but assuming you are murdered, the odds of a gun being used to kill you haven't declined one bit, in fact, they've even risen slightly, but it's so slight that it's not significant.
So, clearly this has much more to do with overall policy and societal behavior than it does to do with the gun ban in NYC. Has the ban contributed? Maybe. Maybe not. Given that the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm has remained steady throughout the period in question, I don't really think one can conclude that the gun ban had any significant effect, or that, at the very least, the gun ban did not have any effects that directly impacted the choice of weapon during the commission of a homicide. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 02:55:35 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Cory:
So, clearly this has much more to do with overall policy and societal behavior than it does to do with the gun ban in NYC. Has the ban contributed? Maybe. Maybe not. Given that the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm has remained steady throughout the period in question, I don't really think one can conclude that the gun ban had any significant effect, or that, at the very least, the gun ban did not have any effects that directly impacted the choice of weapon during the commission of a homicide. |
exactly. the criminals aren't finding another way to kill you if they don't have a gun. they don't have a gun so they don't kill and maybe the homicide rates are down for that reason. your argument in the past is that if someone want s to kill you they will find another weapon, doesn't this (pun intended) shoot holes in that argument? |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 04:47:40 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
So, clearly this has much more to do with overall policy and societal behavior than it does to do with the gun ban in NYC. Has the ban contributed? Maybe. Maybe not. Given that the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm has remained steady throughout the period in question, I don't really think one can conclude that the gun ban had any significant effect, or that, at the very least, the gun ban did not have any effects that directly impacted the choice of weapon during the commission of a homicide. |
exactly. the criminals aren't finding another way to kill you if they don't have a gun. they don't have a gun so they don't kill and maybe the homicide rates are down for that reason. your argument in the past is that if someone want s to kill you they will find another weapon, doesn't this (pun intended) shoot holes in that argument? |
How the heck did you conclude this from my post?
I'm afraid that you're just 180 degrees out on this man, as this data actually supports the conclusion that if someone is going to murder you, the weapon of choice hasn't changed due to gun bans. You ARE less likely to be murdered in the first place, but the gun ban in NYC actually hasn't had an effect on the likelihood that a murderer will choose a gun.
Now, this supports the conclusion that criminals don't care about the law, and it supports the conclusion that banning guns doesn't prevent gun deaths (or even lower the chances a murder will occur with a gun). It also supports the conclusion that gun bans don't work, given that there are still guns available for the criminals to use.
Aside from that, speaking to your question about my previous statement about them finding another weapon - that only matters if guns aren't available. If NYC's homicide rate had stayed about the same, and the number of guns was dramatically reduced, then that is where I would expect the percentage of gun deaths to drop, without a significant overall drop in the homicide rate.
Make sense? |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 05:56:32 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
So, clearly this has much more to do with overall policy and societal behavior than it does to do with the gun ban in NYC. Has the ban contributed? Maybe. Maybe not. Given that the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm has remained steady throughout the period in question, I don't really think one can conclude that the gun ban had any significant effect, or that, at the very least, the gun ban did not have any effects that directly impacted the choice of weapon during the commission of a homicide. |
exactly. the criminals aren't finding another way to kill you if they don't have a gun. they don't have a gun so they don't kill and maybe the homicide rates are down for that reason. your argument in the past is that if someone want s to kill you they will find another weapon, doesn't this (pun intended) shoot holes in that argument? |
How the heck did you conclude this from my post?
I'm afraid that you're just 180 degrees out on this man, as this data actually supports the conclusion that if someone is going to murder you, the weapon of choice hasn't changed due to gun bans. You ARE less likely to be murdered in the first place, but the gun ban in NYC actually hasn't had an effect on the likelihood that a murderer will choose a gun.
Now, this supports the conclusion that criminals don't care about the law, and it supports the conclusion that banning guns doesn't prevent gun deaths (or even lower the chances a murder will occur with a gun). It also supports the conclusion that gun bans don't work, given that there are still guns available for the criminals to use.
Aside from that, speaking to your question about my previous statement about them finding another weapon - that only matters if guns aren't available. If NYC's homicide rate had stayed about the same, and the number of guns was dramatically reduced, then that is where I would expect the percentage of gun deaths to drop, without a significant overall drop in the homicide rate.
Make sense? |
no. none at all.
i'll bet that if you banned guns, all guns, you'd see less people hunt wildlife as opposed to picking up a bow and arrow or some other sort. guns are too easy to use and people are lazy. some would learn a new skill but the majority would just give up hunting.
I'd wager the same goes for violent crime.
Message edited by author 2013-05-05 18:03:55. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 06:04:17 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Make sense? |
no. none at all. |
He's right, Mike: if the gun ban were responsible for the the drop in total homicides, because murderers were not "choosing other weapons", then the number of knife murders, vehicular homicides, etc would remain relatively constant and the number of gun murders would drop strongly.
Instead, we're seeing total homicides dropping, but a pie chart showing the weapons used as a percentage of the total would not look any different. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 06:09:03 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Make sense? |
no. none at all. |
He's right, Mike: if the gun ban were responsible for the the drop in total homicides, because murderers were not "choosing other weapons", then the number of knife murders, vehicular homicides, etc would remain relatively constant and the number of gun murders would drop strongly.
Instead, we're seeing total homicides dropping, but a pie chart showing the weapons used as a percentage of the total would not look any different. |
its a good thing your here to clear things up, that makes more sense the way you put it. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 06:14:08 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Make sense? |
no. none at all. |
He's right, Mike: if the gun ban were responsible for the the drop in total homicides, because murderers were not "choosing other weapons", then the number of knife murders, vehicular homicides, etc would remain relatively constant and the number of gun murders would drop strongly.
Instead, we're seeing total homicides dropping, but a pie chart showing the weapons used as a percentage of the total would not look any different. |
its It's a good thing your you're here to clear things up, that makes more sense the way you put it. |
That's why I get paid to be an editor, LOL :-)
Message edited by author 2013-05-05 18:15:11. |
|
|
|
05/06/2013 06:26:34 PM · #223 |
There's a chapter in Freakonomics that discusses the precipitous drop in violent crime rates since the 90's. Everyone likes to think that their pet solution is what's responsible for that drop, but getting real evidence for any of the theories isn't all that easy. The Freakonomics guys studied the evidence, and concluded that there were four main contributors to the drop in crime rates: the increase in incarceration rates, increased number of police, the end of the crack bubble, and legalized abortion. Two factors that they found that *weren't* responsible were gun control laws and concealed carry laws.
It's an interesting chapter. Actually, it's an interesting book. Still well worth reading. |
|
|
|
05/06/2013 06:32:44 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Mike:
i know it will never happen but we really need reform in campaign contributions. |
the Citizens United decision is killing your country. It is among the most dangerous court decisions you guys have seen. |
Not quite Citizens' United, but before the election last year, Planet Money did a series of podcasts on money in politics. One of the podcasts was about whether or not spending money lobbying pays. They took a bunch of examples where the group doing the lobbying stood to gain financially, and they found that indeed, lobbying pays very well, an average of $220 gain for every dollar spent on lobbying. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 07:48:59 AM · #225 |
|
