Crime plummets in DC and IL after SC rulings

[bfdd]

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?

Answer my question Jhhnn, if year to year isn't a big deal, then how come when the murder rate in Chicago went crazy like two years ago EVERYONE flipped out? Do you not remember that? It was insanely high, if we have no information for correlation to gun control laws, why did they flip out to pass gun control laws in response to these escalating murder rates? Even the newer gun control laws they passed didn't do anything to stifle their increasing murder rates. Though AFTER the SC ruling, it comes down a bit. I'm not saying this is the ONLY reason or even the main reason, I just think it's a fucking poor argument to infringe on the 2nd amendment. I personally don't care if it was even proven that laxer gun laws prevent or increase crime, I would still own a gun and I'd laugh at anyone who tried to take it from me.

 

[sactoking]

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.

Actually, the chart is the best point of reference to use.

A) Showing annual totals for prior years and then a six month total for 2011 is stupid. Nobody compares quarterly or semi-annual data to annual data, the frame of reference is completely wrong.

B) The USSC decision in question was issued in June 2010. That means that in 2010 approx 1/2 the year operated under one rule and the other 1/2 operated under a different rule. You could compare 1st half 2010 to 2nd half 2010 but then you wouldn't be controlling for potential seasonal effects.

C) Comparing timeframes is inherently arbitrary. Why is year-over-year acceptable but 6 months over 6 months isn't? If anything a year-over-year comparison must specifically exclude 2010 since it was not a uniform year.

 

[sactoking]

I just skimmed through the article with the chart and, for my money, people should drop the "discussion" about gun control issues and should start being incensed about this:

I like this justification by then Mayor Daley about his request for five round the clock armed police bodyguards for after he retires:


"The safety of my family comes first,” said Daley, who leaves office on May 16. “I’ve been mayor for 22 years, and my wife has made a commitment [to the city]. … Former mayors received security appropriately. … It’s appropriate for every former mayor. Yes, it’s always appropriate.”

Wasteful spending and corrupt politicians like this are exactly why places like DC and Chicago are in the trouble they're in.

 

[classy]

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

He did that to keep the comparisons equal. Crime overall in the country has dropped. Why, I don't think anyone really knows. But as for the point of the thread showing where the gun ruling had an effect on gun crime, in respect to murder using a gun, that is a completely false statement.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It's really not fair to assume that at all. As you said, correlation does not equal causation. Not only is the sample size too small to make an actual determination, but we also have no idea if gun buying behavior changed significantly over this time. (they mention more permits in Washington, nothing about Chicago, and we don't know if those permits were registering guns already present, what)

It's just another dumb thread from the resident crazy person on these forums.

Keep trying to defend your flawed position. The facts all prove one thing. More legal gun ownership = less crime.
Watch interiews with criminals. They like places with strict gun laws, because by definition they are criminals and will carry a gun regardless. They don't fear cops because they can just surrender to cops. Home owners can shoot on sight and kill them. That's their worst fear.
But keep trying to defend your point that has no basis in facts.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I just skimmed through the article with the chart and, for my money, people should drop the "discussion" about gun control issues and should start being incensed about this:



Wasteful spending and corrupt politicians like this are exactly why places like DC and Chicago are in the trouble they're in.

Exactly. Ever single one of those mother f'ing politicians that want to take guns away from me and you, are more than happy to have them for themselves and for others to protect them.
That speaks volumes on why they want to restrict or outright ban guns. They want you to be afraid so you will accept tighter government control over your life to make it "safer".
F' them and their families since they don't give a crap about our safety.

 

[davmat787]

I just skimmed through the article with the chart and, for my money, people should drop the "discussion" about gun control issues and should start being incensed about this:



Wasteful spending and corrupt politicians like this are exactly why places like DC and Chicago are in the trouble they're in.

Your right, that should piss you off. So his family is worth being protected, at tax payer expense no less, but for you and me? Nope, some BS feel good wedge issue type regulation with no proof to backup its effectiveness is more important.