Crime plummets in DC and IL after SC rulings

[xBiffx]

You're embarrassing yourself right now.

Actually, you are, moron. Here is how it works:

Lets say that I have studied corn for years and I have decided to say "all corn is yellow". Okay, seems justified given my observations over the years were I have seen nothing but yellow corn. It would be impossible for me to track down and find every ear of corn to see if they were all yellow. Instead, I can just find one example where an ear of corn is say, red. Well, I just spent my time trying to disprove my statement rather than prove it.

Now, I say that all places that have gone from more gun control laws to less gun control laws have less crime. Again, seems justified seeing is how I have some data around to support that conjecture. Now all I need to do is try and disprove myself. If I find one example where there is a place where crime has gone up with the reduction of gun control laws then I have disproved my conjecture. This is exactly what people in this thread, and others, have tasked you liberals with but you can't.

Fine you say there is no/not enough data well, I'll go a step further and say that you cannot make the opposite conjecture. You can't say that all places that have increased their gun control laws have lowered crime. Why, because of examples like those in the OP. I can find places where that is not a true statement, therefore that conjecture is false.

Funny, I don't feel embarrassed at all.

 

[bfdd]

lolwned

 

[railer]

Anyways, I'm not really interested in getting in a big debate about this. If you go look at the research on gun control you'll find that there's a whole lot of conflicting information on the topic. 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.

That's very true. However crazy people will take the smallest bit of data, and draw the grandest conclusion from it. That's one of the thingns that makes them crazy, I guess.

Anyway, and I'm no anti-gun nut, but if there was really a correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, then I guess places like Afghanistan, and Somalia would be the safest places on Earth. An armed society is a polite society, right? Or maybe the violent crime rate has a lot more to do with the culture and environment.....hmmmm......

I wish I could drop my IQ 80 points and blindly subscribe to some foolish ideology, but I just can't do it.

 

[bfdd]

That's very true. However crazy people will take the smallest bit of data, and draw the grandest conclusion from it. That's one of the thingns that makes them crazy, I guess.

Anyway, and I'm no anti-gun nut, but if there was really a correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, then I guess places like Afghanistan, and Somalia would be the safest places on Earth. An armed society is a polite society, right? Or maybe the violent crime rate has a lot more to do with the culture and environment.....hmmmm......

I wish I could drop my IQ 80 points and blindly subscribe to some foolish ideology, but I just can't do it.

Everyone in Switzerland must not only own a gun, but qualify with it and everyone knows how violent those damn Swiss are.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Actually, you are, moron. Here is how it works:

Lets say that I have studied corn for years and I have decided to say "all corn is yellow". Okay, seems justified given my observations over the years were I have seen nothing but yellow corn. It would be impossible for me to track down and find every ear of corn to see if they were all yellow. Instead, I can just find one example where an ear of corn is say, red. Well, I just spent my time trying to disprove my statement rather than prove it.

Now, I say that all places that have gone from more gun control laws to less gun control laws have less crime. Again, seems justified seeing is how I have some data around to support that conjecture. Now all I need to do is try and disprove myself. If I find one example where there is a place where crime has gone up with the reduction of gun control laws then I have disproved my conjecture. This is exactly what people in this thread, and others, have tasked you liberals with but you can't.

Fine you say there is no/not enough data well, I'll go a step further and say that you cannot make the opposite conjecture. You can't say that all places that have increased their gun control laws have lowered crime. Why, because of examples like those in the OP. I can find places where that is not a true statement, therefore that conjecture is false.

Funny, I don't feel embarrassed at all.

The actual data is not hard to find. E.g., http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf

In aggregate there doesn't appear to be significant reduction in crime when states enact highly permissive gun laws, and some types of crimes appear to increase. The idea that the limited changes in crime rates in DC and IL in the last year can be causally tied to a change in gun laws is laughable - there is just not enough data to reach that conclusion.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, you are, moron. Here is how it works:

Lets say that I have studied corn for years and I have decided to say "all corn is yellow". Okay, seems justified given my observations over the years were I have seen nothing but yellow corn. It would be impossible for me to track down and find every ear of corn to see if they were all yellow. Instead, I can just find one example where an ear of corn is say, red. Well, I just spent my time trying to disprove my statement rather than prove it.

Now, I say that all places that have gone from more gun control laws to less gun control laws have less crime. Again, seems justified seeing is how I have some data around to support that conjecture. Now all I need to do is try and disprove myself. If I find one example where there is a place where crime has gone up with the reduction of gun control laws then I have disproved my conjecture. This is exactly what people in this thread, and others, have tasked you liberals with but you can't.

Fine you say there is no/not enough data well, I'll go a step further and say that you cannot make the opposite conjecture. You can't say that all places that have increased their gun control laws have lowered crime. Why, because of examples like those in the OP. I can find places where that is not a true statement, therefore that conjecture is false.

Funny, I don't feel embarrassed at all.

My statement was about who the burden of proof was on, not the scientific method, you idiot. The 'proof' provided in these threads is in no way sufficient to merit the conclusions being made.

You are terrible at this.

 

[xBiffx]

The actual data is not hard to find. E.g., http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf

In aggregate there doesn't appear to be significant reduction in crime when states enact highly permissive gun laws, and some types of crimes appear to increase. The idea that the limited changes in crime rates in DC and IL in the last year can be causally tied to a change in gun laws is laughable - there is just not enough data to reach that conclusion.

You haven't done anything to disprove my conjecture. Nothing of what I said was to say that the reduction of the laws was the cause of the reduced crime. I simply said that where there is reduced gun control laws, there is reduced crime. I made no conclusion, simply conjecture. People can conclude what they want, and if one conclusion is to say that the reduction in the laws is the reason for the reduced crime, the data seems to support that. Arguing that this isn't a valid conclusion is ridiculous. All you have done is said that there are other conclusions can be drawn but you haven't disproved this conclusion in anyway.

 

[xBiffx]

My statement was about who the burden of proof was on, not the scientific method, you idiot. The 'proof' provided in these threads is in no way sufficient to merit the conclusions being made.

You are terrible at this.

If one makes a conjecture, with data that backs it up then they don't have to disprove it. If you want to refute that statement, then it is up to you to find data to the contrary. Its not enough to say the data can say something else or there is some other reason. You need to have data that says that the original statement is not true at all. Seems like the data presented in the OP does not support your idea that have more gun control means less crime. When you come up with that data, you have disproved the conjecture.

So far, it seems that every place that has reduced its gun control laws has seen a reduction in crime. Sure you can say the reduction in laws was not the reason, but that does't disprove the original claim in any way. If you find a place that has more gun control now that it did a short time ago and that place has reduced crime, then you have done your job disproving that original claim.

Edit: Back to my example. I say all corn is yellow. I haven't seen any non yellow corn, perhaps you have. All you have to do is show me some non yellow corn and you have proven me wrong. Please, show me the "non yellow corn" in this case.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You haven't done anything to disprove my conjecture. Nothing of what I said was to say that the reduction of the laws was the cause of the reduced crime. I simply said that where there is reduced gun control laws, there is reduced crime. I made no conclusion, simply conjecture. People can conclude what they want, and if one conclusion is to say that the reduction in the laws is the reason for the reduced crime, the data seems to support that. Arguing that this isn't a valid conclusion is ridiculous. All you have done is said that there are other conclusions can be drawn but you haven't disproved this conclusion in anyway.

Did you even look at the research studies I cited to? I am stupefied by your opacity and the oafishness of your "logic." Again, the data exists in the form of peer-reviewed research. You can read it. No need to draw your own misguided conclusions based on no data at all.

 

[fskimospy]

If one makes a conjecture, with data that backs it up then they don't have to disprove it. If you want to refute that statement, then it is up to you to find data to the contrary. Its not enough to say the data can say something else or there is some other reason. You need to have data that says that the original statement is not true at all. Seems like the data presented in the OP does not support your idea that have more gun control means less crime. When you come up with that data, you have disproved the conjecture.

So far, it seems that every place that has reduced its gun control laws has seen a reduction in crime. Sure you can say the reduction in laws was not the reason, but that does't disprove the original claim in any way. If you find a place that has more gun control now that it did a short time ago and that place has reduced crime, then you have done your job disproving that original claim.

Edit: Back to my example. I say all corn is yellow. I haven't seen any non yellow corn, perhaps you have. All you have to do is show me some non yellow corn and you have proven me wrong. Please, show me the "non yellow corn" in this case.

Actually, when presented with conjecture and data you can do two things. You can find countervailing data, or you can show how the data used was insufficient to draw a conclusion from. This is what has already been done repeatedly here. I have never tried to draw the opposite conclusion (as I am actually not generally in favor of gun control), I'm just pointing out how absolutely ridiculous the pro-gun arguments here are. That's what you get from a spidey thread though, he's mentally ill.

To use your corn example, if you happened to notice that it was always summertime when corn was growing, you could make the conjecture that corn controls the seasons. Despite you having offered your conjecture and your data for this, people don't have to actually decide not to grow corn for a year to provide you with a counter factual. They can just point out the problems with what you're trying to do and be done with it. Hope this clears things up for you.

 

[xBiffx]

Did you even look at the research studies I cited to? I am stupefied by your opacity and the oafishness of your "logic." Again, the data exists in the form of peer-reviewed research. You can read it. No need to draw your own misguided conclusions based on no data at all.

Yes I did, and I have read this before. All this shows is that you can look at the data and conclusions that were previously drawn in the original study and you can show other conclusions that are different than original conclusion. The new conclusions simply say that you can't know one way or the other. Some crime goes up, some crime goes down. All they really did was muddy the waters around the original conclusion.

 

[xBiffx]

Actually, when presented with conjecture and data you can do two things. You can find countervailing data, or you can show how the data used was insufficient to draw a conclusion from. This is what has already been done repeatedly here. I have never tried to draw the opposite conclusion (as I am actually not generally in favor of gun control), I'm just pointing out how absolutely ridiculous the pro-gun arguments here are. That's what you get from a spidey thread though, he's mentally ill.

To use your corn example, if you happened to notice that it was always summertime when corn was growing, you could make the conjecture that corn controls the seasons. Despite you having offered your conjecture and your data for this, people don't have to actually decide not to grow corn for a year to provide you with a counter factual. They can just point out the problems with what you're trying to do and be done with it. Hope this clears things up for you.

As with the original debate, with the corn analogy you have done nothing to disprove my conjecture. You have simply deflected and tried to say that you don't have to come up with an answer. It's simple, show me one city that has increased its gun control laws and has reduced its crime. Regardless of whether you agree that the change in gun control laws either way is the reason for the change in crime doesn't matter. Just show me where a city has increased gun control and has reduced crime. Until you can do that, people can conclude, based on empirical results such as the OP, that the contrary is true. You can disagree with this conclusion or make a different one, no one is saying you can't, but saying that this conclusion is unfounded is disingenuous, at best. Simply put, there is no data to disprove this, only the idea that more guns means more crime and not less.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Yes I did, and I have read this before. All this shows is that you can look at the data and conclusions that were previously drawn in the original study and you can show other conclusions that are different than original conclusion. The new conclusions simply say that you can't know one way or the other. Some crime goes up, some crime goes down. All they really did was muddy the waters around the original conclusion.

And so your interpretation of that is that you know better than the researchers and so your own conclusion is therefore the right one? It's an an absurd argument. I am not anti-gun - I have a Glock 17 with a tactical light, loaded with Speer Gold Dots in my nightstand - but I am finding your logic just mind-numblingly, obviously faulty to the point that it's making my head hurt.

 

[xBiffx]

And so your interpretation of that is that you know better than the researchers and so your own conclusion is therefore the right one? It's an an absurd argument. I am not anti-gun - I have a Glock 17 with a tactical light, loaded with Speer Gold Dots in my nightstand - but I am finding your logic just mind-numblingly, obviously faulty to the point that it's making my head hurt.

Which set of researchers? The original study/claim says one thing, the reanalysis/claim says another. I can't agree with both. Like many studies, you can draw conclusions anyway you want, all this paper does is prove that.

I never said I know more than these researchers. I have seen data that supports one conclusion but I haven't seen any data that disproves this conclusion. Sure you can say the data supports other conclusions.

 

[bfdd]

The actual data is not hard to find. E.g., http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf

In aggregate there doesn't appear to be significant reduction in crime when states enact highly permissive gun laws, and some types of crimes appear to increase. The idea that the limited changes in crime rates in DC and IL in the last year can be causally tied to a change in gun laws is laughable - there is just not enough data to reach that conclusion.

if year to year doesn't matter much, why did everyone flip out when the murder rate skyrocketed in Chicago? Because it does matter. Also, I'm going to make an observation. People in this country have, for the most part, been getting poorer financially. Crime rates have also gone down nationally. Therefore, the less money people make the lessnlikely they're to commit crime.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm all for CCW... but let's not pretend it's a panacea for violent crime and burglary.

 

[classy]

Bogus and total failure due to gun rulings. Here is a graph that breaks down the truth...

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/08/so-what-happened-to-chicagos-murder-and.html

Here you can see in the same time frame before the rulings the same number of murders committed with a gun in 2005 are the same as 2011. We also see that in 2007 less murders were committed with a gun than any other year. Crime as whole is down in many cities. LA and NY have had very noticeable drops in crime as well. Recession hurts everyone, even criminals.

 

[Unheard]

Yep. However if studies "proving" abortion leads to better education levels come out, all of a sudden it's ZOMG abortion should be legal everywhere in all cases!

Don't get me wrong I'm for limited abortion and I can understand how it could benefit education levels, among other things; but it's still correlation = causation. If you're going to act as if that's been definitively proven, then you should accept that same mentality on gun control.

And for the record, I'm not just using spidey's link as a support. There have been studies and real-world experiments (see my example of Kennesaw GA that all the liberals in this thread are avoiding) that "prove" gun freedoms reduce crime as much as any study "proves" that available abortion increases education levels.

I'm sitting in Kennesaw right now. Just looked out the window here at work, no blood in the streets or vigilante justice. It's truly amazing!

 

[lothar]

I'm sitting in Kennesaw right now. Just looked out the window here at work, no blood in the streets or vigilante justice. It's truly amazing!

You mean it's not a "Wild Wild West" over there? Are you serious?

 

[Zargon]

Bogus and total failure due to gun rulings. Here is a graph that breaks down the truth...

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/08/so-what-happened-to-chicagos-murder-and.html

Here you can see in the same time frame before the rulings the same number of murders committed with a gun in 2005 are the same as 2011. We also see that in 2007 less murders were committed with a gun than any other year. Crime as whole is down in many cities. LA and NY have had very noticeable drops in crime as well. Recession hurts everyone, even criminals.

you dont find it suspect at all that he used jan-june and not the whole year?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Gun freedoms and drops and crime is a proven concept. As opposed to gun freedoms and "wild west gunfights" that the left has predicted since the 80s and have yet to materialize, anywhere, despite the fact that gun laws are in many ways looser than they've ever been. Oh and national crime is dropping to boot.

link please.........or are you spewing forth your own doctrine...

 

[Lithium381]

you dont find it suspect at all that he used jan-june and not the whole year?

Maybe because that's the only time frame he has data for so far in 2011 and he's trying to keep a constant timeframe?

 

[Jhhnn]

if year to year doesn't matter much, why did everyone flip out when the murder rate skyrocketed in Chicago? Because it does matter. Also, I'm going to make an observation. People in this country have, for the most part, been getting poorer financially. Crime rates have also gone down nationally. Therefore, the less money people make the lessnlikely they're to commit crime.

link please.........or are you spewing forth your own doctrine...

It's a faith based conclusion, and therefore irrefutable, at least in the mind of the believer.

The whole Kennesaw thing is quite odd- how do the authorities know you really do have a gun? Do they come knock on your door, say "Show me your gun" or what? What's the penalty for non-compliance, and how could it possibly be constitutional?

 

[werepossum]

you dont find it suspect at all that he used jan-june and not the whole year?

Yes, we find it very suspicious that he used only January to June. To have any credibility, one needs to include statistics for things that have not yet happened. That way we know that you have divine inspiration and can follow you blindly.

I am Joe King.

 

[xBiffx]

Maybe because that's the only time frame he has data for so far in 2011 and he's trying to keep a constant timeframe?

So then show the data for the whole year for the previous years and the six months you have for this year. Not hard to extrapolate the rest of the year. Or, better yet, wait until you have the whole year's worth of data since it might not be linear throughout the year. Maybe crime goes up around the holidays like suicides do. Who knows.