• 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.

Dissecting crime stats

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ivwshane said:
You are talking to morons that think that because a chart backs up their opinion that it must be true, they don't question the data. As an example just look at all the rabid righties pointing to polls and saying Obama is going to lose big. These people are sheep and are easily mislead using fear based reasoning.
Click to expand...

So when data backs up someone's opinion and they think it's true, they are Morons? Damn son, I mean damn.....
 
Matt1970 said:
If he doesn't like your data he will just insult you, or insult the source of the data, or just make up his own contradictory data.
Click to expand...

I only insult retarded people. As has been stated by me and other posters, data can be manipulated, if you don't question it, then yes, I will call you on it and I hope everyone would do the same to me, I don't want to be manipulated, do you?
 
RampantAndroid said:
Yes, completely ignore the asterisk about the reporting being voluntary. And gun sales only increasing. Yes, you smart!


Don't bother to look up Gallup's report either - that might disagree with your shitty position.

gunownership-500x290.gif
Click to expand...

Hahaha nice try. Your first post tried this trick by only talking about 1991 onwards. Now you try linking a chart that does 2000 onwards, all while trying to talk about crime trends that have been happening since the 70s. Tsk tsk. Oh, and voluntary or not is irrelevant if you're talking about trends unless you can identify a reason why people are less likely to disclose ownership now than in the past.

I simply read the chart that you provided as evidence for your opinion. It's not my fault that you linked something that disproved what you were trying to argue.
 
ivwshane said:
You are talking to morons that think that because a chart backs up their opinion that it must be true, they don't question the data. As an example just look at all the rabid righties pointing to polls and saying Obama is going to lose big. These people are sheep and are easily mislead using fear based reasoning.
Click to expand...

People being mislead using fear based reasoning...You mean kind of like the reasoning most gun control advocates use to scare people into agreeing with them? Black rifles are scary! Fear of the unknown is a very powerful motivator.
 
Gun violence/death/injury in the US is severely undereported due to their being a ban on the ATF releasing gun related statistics (thanks NRA!) and the CDC being banned from tracking death from guns (thanks NRA!).
 
Triumph said:
People being mislead using fear based reasoning...You mean kind of like the reasoning most gun control advocates use to scare people into agreeing with them? Black rifles are scary! Fear of the unknown is a very powerful motivator.
Click to expand...

Yes, like that.
 
MooseNSquirrel said:
Gun violence/death/injury in the US is severely undereported due to their being a ban on the ATF releasing gun related statistics (thanks NRA!) and the CDC being banned from tracking death from guns (thanks NRA!).
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about with the ATF, but you can go on the CDC's website right now and search death statistics by type, be they swimming pool, snake bike, car accident, heart attack, or even murder by gun or suicide by gun. What the CDC was doing a few years back was advocating gun control measures by compiling the numbers in such a way to make it look like owning a gun was akin to eating McDonald's 3 times a day and consuming too much alcohol. "Gun owners are 5 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to kill someone with a gun" or something like that. What the meaning behind that was that you are likely to be killed by someone you know rather than someone you don't know, a statistic skewed heavily by gang related violence. Be that as it may, the CDC most definitely tracks deaths by guns. I've looked at that data myself on their website.
 
eskimospy said:
all while trying to talk about crime trends that have been happening since the 70s.
Click to expand...

Where the fuck did I say that? You're a god damned fucking retard if you think I've talked about the 70s.

My chart DISAGREES WITH THE DATA YOUR CHART HAS. Christ are you dense, get the fuck out of this thread.
 
MooseNSquirrel said:
Gun violence/death/injury in the US is severely undereported due to their being a ban on the ATF releasing gun related statistics (thanks NRA!) and the CDC being banned from tracking death from guns (thanks NRA!).
Click to expand...

You mean the ATF that stated they'd try to redirect any anger at the fast and furious program towards guns in general to further their efforts to add more gun control?

The FBI is a non-partisan organization. I don't want something like the ATF that has a bias reporting this stuff.
 
RampantAndroid said:
Where the fuck did I say that? You're a god damned fucking retard if you think I've talked about the 70s.

My chart DISAGREES WITH THE DATA YOUR CHART HAS. Christ are you dense, get the fuck out of this thread.
Click to expand...

NOT IN ANY WAY THAT MATTERS. Both charts showed a decline in gun ownership over the observed period. Since crime in the US has steadily declined since the 1970s it makes sense to measure since then, but your chart didn't do that. Regardless, even from the 90s to present there was a further decrease in gun ownership. This corresponded with a decrease in crime. Ie: both your chart and mine supported my point, even if the numbers were different.

Don't be mad at me, you're the one who tried to dispute my point by linking a chart that supported my point. By all means keep babbling and swearing though, that should help.
 
piasabird said:
Look at france the "Youths" (Codeword for Muslims), turned over 1,000 automobiles to start out the new year.
Click to expand...

Im sure Charles Martel is rolling around in his grave, he pushed the Islamic invaders of his time out of france, and his descendents now welcome them in with open arms to tear the place apart..Some things change for the worse unfortunately.
 
The number of large metropolitan areas is only relevant if it makes up a larger share of the general population. His argument is that if there are more large cities where the violent crime rate is higher, then, the nations violent crime rate should be higher.

A more relevant statistic would be the number of people living in large metropolitan areas vs total population.

This would mean that, using his cited sources, we have: (35,070,220 Americans in cities of 250,000 or more people) / (311,591,917 Americans). Giving us around 11.3% of our population living in dense cities.

Whereas, the UK and Wales have 64,641,000 + 3,064,000 = 67,705,000 total population, of which 25,250,215 are in urban areas. This gives them about 37.2% of their population living in dense cities.

So yeah, he was trying to make a sound argument there but made a serious mathematical error. Their crime rates are at best similar to ours, given that the selection of crimes that are considered violent is similar, which he never established.

This guy made some pretty serious statistical errors either accidentally or intentionally.
 
Lower gun ownership per household != lower gun ownership

With the rise of more females living by themselves, even if gun ownership remained constant, the surveys would report less gun ownership per household. Females are less likely to own guns. So when females stop living with males as much, you add a bunch of households that don't own guns.

So the "percentage of households that own guns" is completely meaningless.
 
piasabird said:
US Crime Statistics are probably including all of the Death by Cop deaths and suicides. Technically these are not murders. Cops shoot people too.

There were 1,000 cars overturned and burned in France for new years. I dont get that. Then when they report it, they say youths, when what they mean is young muslim men. That is how I interpret it. They seek to hide the truth.
Click to expand...

When you use words like what I bolded, it just make it where what the rest of what you wrote pointless.
 
The fact that violent crime has been on a significant decline over the last couple of decades should show that gun control isn't really necessary. (i'm mostly pro-gun and own 7 firearms)

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable should be our priority, not the law abiding citizen.

And no matter which way you look at the statistics, i've never seen one that shows that "assault weapons" are used in crimes frequently enough to warrant any action at all.
 
Acanthus said:
The fact that violent crime has been on a significant decline over the last couple of decades should show that gun control isn't really necessary. (i'm mostly pro-gun and own 7 firearms)

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable should be our priority, not the law abiding citizen.

And no matter which way you look at the statistics, i've never seen one that shows that "assault weapons" are used in crimes frequently enough to warrant any action at all.
Click to expand...

That should be easy to prove. Since 94-2004 when the awb was in affect we should see either gun deaths rise or lower and from 2004-present we shouldn't see gun deaths rising.

Show me the data!
 
ivwshane said:
That should be easy to prove. Since 94-2004 when the awb was in affect we should see either gun deaths rise or lower and from 2004-present we shouldn't see gun deaths rising.

Show me the data!
Click to expand...

Violent crime did decline during that period, but it also continued to decline throughout those years surrounding the ban. Some people think the continual decline in violent crime is Roe v Wade and stronger welfare programs.

We are really in a twilight zone story right now as far as violent crime goes, with the economic downturn and U6 unemployment as high at is, we should be seeing a HUGE spike in both petty and violent crime that has yet to materialize. Again, some people credit this to strong social welfare systems such as extending unemployment benefits.
 
The problem with your post is that you are looking at "violent crime", not gun crime, there is a difference. Show me data for gun related crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top