• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Crime plummets in DC and IL after SC rulings

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
irishScott said:
And I'm pointing out how off base you are. You think burglars are robbing places to get money for food? Maybe a few are, but I doubt the majority of, say.. carjackers are stealing SUVs so they can buy Campbells Chicken Noodle.
Click to expand...

Again. I was talking about myself. And once you get into crime it's a lot easier to stay into it. You think people making 40k+ a year are like you know what? I'm going to start stealing cars for a living.
 
AyashiKaibutsu said:
Again. I was talking about myself. And once you get into crime it's a lot easier to stay into it. You think people making 40k+ a year are like you know what? I'm going to start stealing cars for a living.
Click to expand...

Alright, so say you're starving. Do you go to a soup kitchen for free food at no real risk, rob a house whose family is on vacation for a relatively slight risk, or spend what precious little you have arming yourself and breaking into a potentially armed household with deadly risk?
 
irishScott said:
Alright, so say you're starving. Do you go to a soup kitchen for free food at no real risk, rob a house whose family is on vacation for a relatively slight risk, or spend what precious little you have arming yourself and breaking into a potentially armed household with deadly risk?
Click to expand...

I'd go in that order depending on what's available.

I never argued that poverty rates have less to do with crime than gun laws, I'm just saying it doesn't make gun laws irrelevant, which you implied.
Click to expand...

When did I imply gun laws were irrelevant?
 
eskimospy said:
Regardless of how you feel about the issue you should also know well enough to not take a single year in an isolated area and try to draw this type of conclusion with it.
Click to expand...

It's Spidey. It's what he wants to believe. And it's only a relatively small leap of faith for gun advocates in general.

The truth is unknowable, and immaterial to them, anyway. Fox offers a conclusion based on the pre-existing beliefs of their audience, and they know their audience. It's about Faith.

There are much stronger correlations between the long term decline of violent crime and other factors, like abortion, but popular belief isn't a phenomenon based on rational analysis. Fox knows that, too, even if their audience doesn't have a clue.
 
Just imagine if the gun crime rates went up....

All the anti-gun people would have been bitching about it and would have linked this as the direct cause.

"See!?? See we told you Spidey!!! it went up like we said it would!!! You gun nuts!! Ban them now!! Wahhh!"
 
Double Trouble said:
That's a bogus argument. Correlation does not equal causation, there are lots of other factors that play a role.
...
Click to expand...

Why is it that people only understand the flaw in arguing correlation and causation when it supports their point to do so? This entire thread is based on the premise that correlation equals causation, isn't it?
 
matt0611 said:
Just imagine if the gun crime rates went up....

All the anti-gun people would have been bitching about it and would have linked this as the direct cause.

"See!?? See we told you Spidey!!! it went up like we said it would!!! You gun nuts!! Ban them now!! Wahhh!"
Click to expand...

You mean the same way Spidey's arguing that his point is proved when the rates went down?

Yes, people argue that evidence supports their point when the evidence appears to support their point. Congratulations, you are clearly a very insightful commentator...
 
what the hell is wrong with every one's English, I read the first 10 posts on this thread and it was shameful, couldn't understand anything
 
Interesting article, OP. I know it was mentioned that poverty may play a role in the demographics of the area where crime occurs; are the areas with the most restrictive gun laws not also areas of high population density? Might that play a role in the statistics?

Guys, lets focus on the premise of the post and not get into personal attacks....
 
spidey07 said:
As predicted, by anybody with a freaking ounce of common sense, when a criminal knows their victim my very well kill them, LEGALY, they may think twice about if their action is really worth death. Yada, fox news, yada, wild west, yada, think of the children, yada, blood in the streets, yada.

Hey criminal! You want to threaten me, my property or my house? I shoot you dead. THAT is the consequence you face, bad guy.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/media-silence-is-deafening-about-important-gun-news/
Click to expand...

wait... they were still allowed to have shotguns and rifles in their house, no?

if so, then how would having a handgun make a diff?
 
Lithium381 said:
Interesting article, OP. I know it was mentioned that poverty may play a role in the demographics of the area where crime occurs; are the areas with the most restrictive gun laws not also areas of high population density? Might that play a role in the statistics?

Guys, lets focus on the premise of the post and not get into personal attacks....
Click to expand...

The premise of the post seems to be that crime went down because gun laws became more permissive in DC and IL. The (only) supporting evidence for this argument is that crime rates fell in DC and Chicago more than it did in similar sized cities (which have also experienced a reduction in crime rates).

You don't really need to be a scientist to see the problem with this argument. The author of this opinion piece isn't controlling for any other variables or indicating any sort of causal relationship, he's simply noting that two things happened at the same time and concluding that they therefore are related.

For an example of why this kind of logic is silly, consider that the author points out that murders from 2008 till now have fallen 34% in DC. You might notice that this roughly lines up with when Bush left DC and Obama took up residence in the White House. Therefore, Obama decreased the murder rate in DC. See the problem? 😉
 
Rainsford said:
The premise of the post seems to be that crime went down because gun laws became more permissive in DC and IL. The (only) supporting evidence for this argument is that crime rates fell in DC and Chicago more than it did in similar sized cities (which have also experienced a reduction in crime rates).

You don't really need to be a scientist to see the problem with this argument. The author of this opinion piece isn't controlling for any other variables or indicating any sort of causal relationship, he's simply noting that two things happened at the same time and concluding that they therefore are related.

For an example of why this kind of logic is silly, consider that the author points out that murders from 2008 till now have fallen 34% in DC. You might notice that this roughly lines up with when Bush left DC and Obama took up residence in the White House. Therefore, Obama decreased the murder rate in DC. See the problem? 😉
Click to expand...

Correct.... though what I took away from it was that while crime went down, which may or may not be directly related to this repeal, the "wild wild west" and mass chaos didn't occur as many had feared. Did the change in law have an effect on crime? Probably. Can you attribute it to the whole difference in % between these cities and other large cities? Probably not.
 
Gun laws only protect those who carry and use illegal guns. They actually create black markets for illegal guns. If you make something illegal, then the prices rise due to scarcity. Every time some politician proposes some new gun law, the sales increase 10 fold. It is even better if you have a lax gun law state next to a state with strict gun laws.
 
Last edited:
Wow, so the OP continues to connect invisible dots and paint pictures with invisible paint?

What the fuck is new, hope they have a good ISP in the jail you are going to wind up in Spidey...
 
umbrella39 said:
Wow, so the OP continues to connect invisible dots and paint pictures with invisible paint?

What the fuck is new, hope they have a good ISP in the jail you are going to wind up in Spidey...
Click to expand...

Is this dot invisible? Il and DC mayors and liberal politicians/pundits predicted blood in the streets because of the landmark SC rulings, just the opposite happened.

Similarly, in the year after the 2008 "Heller" decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...ening-about-important-gun-news/#ixzz1ZjbqZ19Z
Click to expand...
 
spittledip said:
I'm no gun nut- in fact I have never even shot a gun before- but are you telling me that if you were a burglar and you found out that gun ownership was just made legal, that you would not have any second thoughts about breaking into people's houses? I know I would. It just seems like common sense to me.
Click to expand...

Pst, not all thieves are up on current events, not all thieves are stupid, some ALREADY assume you have the means to protect yourself and come prepared. Common sense... This OP is a fucking joke.
 
umbrella39 said:
Pst, not all thieves are up on current events, not all thieves are stupid, some ALREADY assume you have the means to protect yourself and come prepared. Common sense... This OP is a fucking joke.
Click to expand...

Sounds like somebody is mad that gun control nuts have to wait a few more years to plot their takeover of this country from unarmed citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top