"Experts" are full of crap.

[Russ]

This quote is from the thread about gun control, and relates to the drop in crime rates over the past several years. I can't seem to find the original thread anywhere, so I'll start another.



<< Law enforcement experts credited a variety of factors, including a booming economy and declining unemployment >>



One really should not place faith in these so-called ?experts? (yeah, right, haha). They, like everyone else, are doing nothing more than speculating and GUESSING. In other words, they have no idea what they're talking about.

Again, there is no historical precedence for the assertion that crime rates drop during good economic times. They can make this claim until the cows come home, but the FACTS do not bear this out.

The 1960?s saw a strong economy and an extended period of prosperity, yet the crime index doubled during that decade. Read the RAW DATA and start thinking for yourselves instead of automatically buying the easy answers so glibly barfed up by the feel-gooders.

Russ, NCNE

 

[BigToque]

I was about to say that your post didnt account for increases in population...

Then I clicked on the link, and shut myself up.

 

[DataFly]

How do I view the &quot;RAW DATA&quot; file?






Thanks...

 

[BigToque]

DataFly,

You need Microsoft Excel.

 

[Unsickle]

Less people commiting crimes.

 

[BigToque]

Red,

Who are you speaking to?

 

[Russ]

Red,

I have a &quot;guess&quot; which is probably just as valid as any other guess. I think the single most important factor is the stiffening of sentences that began in the early 90's. This coincides with the beginning of the decline.

But, as I said this is just a guess. But, at least it has some verifiable merit, unlike the assumptions about the ebb and flow of the economy and it's impact on criminal activity.

The problem we have with a lot of what is passed off as &quot;fact&quot; from the &quot;experts&quot; is that very few take the time to actually find out if the assertions are true so, after they are repeated enough times, people just start assuming they are.

A perfect example was the feminists accusation that domestic violence increases on Super Bowl Sunday. It was repeated all over the country by the major media, and nobody bothered investigating it. Everybody just automatically believed it.

Of course, it turned out to be a complete fabrication: Much of what we assume to be true is. We are a very gullible people.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Tominator]

...But you must realise that Liberals depend on emotion. Emotion is easier to deal with than the thought process...spelled facts. Americans are growing lazier...if that is possible

 

[Russ]

Tom,

Then we must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to illuminate.

Russ, NCNE

 

[KurtDavidson]

QUOTE --- &quot;They, like everyone else, are doing nothing more than speculating and GUESSING. In other words, they have no idea what they're talking about.&quot;

sounds like you are describing anandtech members...

 

[Tominator]

<< illuminate >>

..as in 220v applied to a 110v circuit...??....also no as a 'Jump Start!'

To address the origional posts...

<< Law enforcement experts credited a variety of factors, including a booming economy and declining unemployment >>



I would like to see Law enforcement defined. Anyone over the rank of Captain is nothing but a Politician! They have a habit of denying the Cop on The Street his First Amendment Rights.

As a note, the FOP [Fraternal Order of Police] endorsed Clinton in previous elections....in this election they endorse Bush....

 

[Tripleshot]

Tominator
<<...But you must realise that Liberals depend on emotion. Emotion is easier to deal with than the thought process...spelled facts. Americans are growing lazier...if that is possible >>


Your words
<<Gore wants registration of ALL handguns, followed by confiscation of course. >>


Show us the FACTS


Liberals depend on emotion

Hmmm. Of course everyone is calm and descrete at an NRA rally against gun control. Certainly no &quot;Emotions&quot; there! ROFLMAO

 

[GL]

I'm so glad I took a university level Statistics course this summer. Every single statistic you hear on the media is true...their interpretation of these statistics is completely false. You can only determine a correlation with statistics, as many have already pointed out, cause-and-effect relationships between these numbers is based solely on speculation unless you delve deeper into the situation.

i.e. Their is a correlation between good economic times and low crime levels (let's just assume this for this example). The media warps this to be &quot;good economic times lead to lower crime levels&quot;. Absolutely not the case. In fact, if you use this logic you could just as easily have concluded &quot;low crime levels lead to good economic times&quot; and you know that would be false.

When cause-and-effect relationships can be determined, more than just numbers are involved.

i.e. Statisticians may have noticed a correlation between smoking and lung cancer. However, they could not prove that smoking caused cancer until further scientific evidence was established that explained the correlation.

Anyway, just take all statistics with a grain of salt. They are usually uttered by people with a severe lack of mathematical intuitiveness, which is essential in interpreting these numbers.

-GL

 

[searcher]

<< ...But you must realise that Liberals depend on emotion. >>



In response to this, how about this?



<< The problem we have with a lot of what is passed off as &quot;fact&quot; from the &quot;experts&quot; is that very few take the time to actually find out if the assertions are true so, after they are repeated enough times, people just start assuming they are. >>





Michael

 

[rahvin]

You see one thing I see another. [edit]Missed the second set of columns.[/edit] Also by looking at the data I see big jumps around 74 and 89, those were two of the bigger periods where unemployment was hitting pretty hard. Looking closer it plays it out even better, unemployment began to rise steadly after 74 when the big war on inflation started. It peaked out in 80 when Reagen took office and Reagenomics drove it down for a period, it began climbing again during the Bush adminstration and peaked around the stock market collapse of '89 and held levels till just before clinton was elected in 92. Unemployment began declining during the 90's and bottemed out at &quot;0%&quot; unemployment in 98-99. I see a direct correlation between jobless data and crime rates without statistical analysis.

If you do a little statistical analysis and compare it against jobless data for the periods I think you will see a pretty good correlation between unemployment and crime rates. In fact I believe people have already done these studies and this is what the law enforcement officials are refering to.

Not to metion that logic suggests that &quot;idle hands lead to the devils work&quot; as the old sayings go. BTW for current reference unemployment is at it's lowest point in something like 20 years we are at approximately &quot;0%&quot; unemployment.

 

[apoppin]

You must know the &quot;real&quot; definition of EXPERT.

EX is a has-been. SPERT is a drip under pressure.













It all begins to make sense now.

 

[Russ]

Tripleshot

Bore has stated repeatedly that he supports registration of guns and gun owners. This cannot be refuted. It also cannot be argued that registration is necessary to weed out undesirables. This is what background checks are supposed to accomplish. There is no reason for registration other than eventual confiscation.



<< If you do a little statistical analysis and compare it against jobless data for the periods I think you will see a pretty good correlation between unemployment and crime rates. >>



Rahvin,

No, you won't. You might see that if you isolate a small period of time, a period that, by it's brevity, invalidates the assumption. Looking at the statistics in totality during the period covered, the increase is steady and linear regardless of the economic situation.

This trend did not begin to reverse until the early 1990's.

Russ, NCNE

 

[GL]

Should I feed these numbers through Minitab? Lemme check them out...

-GL

 

[rahvin]

Link to a study:

NCJRS Report

Russ,

If you look at the spreadsheet there is a second set of colums that includes a crime index (per 100,000), begining at 74 it increases until 1980, falls for a couple years, begins to rise again until 91, falls until now. Explain that. Re-read what I wrote I amended it. There is a weak correlation between the two and a well written research report in the link. Text

 

[Tominator]

Tripleshot
Omce again. you are late to the argument.....Handgun Control and Sarah Brady are at the forefront of the Clinton/Gore campaign in the form of campaign contributions garnered from the Liberal Left.

<< Only the Military and Police should be allowed firearms... >>

as told by Sarah Brady and echoed by the Clinton/Gore administration. I'd direct you to several Pro-Gun pages with the exact text as well as rebuttels, but most Anti-Gunners care not about the facts. Facts? Yes, unlike Liberals, they give sources for their findings...

The NRA has NEVER been against Gun Control...only laws that serve to disarm the public with zero effect on the crime rate have they spoken out against.

GL
To decry all statistics is to become morose and unlearned! You must realise that if they taught you this...

<< Anyway, just take all statistics with a grain of salt. They are usually uttered by people with a severe lack of mathematical intuitiveness, which is essential in interpreting these numbers. >>

...then you've chosen to ignore facts. If you had studied debate, not inuendo, you would have discovered the path to truth....none of which seems to inhabit our so-called Public Education System.

 

[Tripleshot]

Russ,

Your reponse:

<<There is no reason for registration other than eventual confiscation.>>

That sure sounds like the &quot;EMOTIONAL&quot; response bantered at any NRA rally (of witch I note ,you are not a member.


If you can't dazzle them with brilliancy,baffle them with bullsh!t ,RIGHT RUSS?

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Russ]

rahvin,

There is also a steady INCREASE throughout the 1960's. I was around then, the economy was booming. If you go back even futher, crime dropped during the Great Depression substantially from the &quot;roaring&quot; twenties. (That one, I had to read about - I'm not that old).

Thus, we can easily &quot;prove&quot; that the opposite is true: Crime drops in bad times, and increases in good times. Yet, neither thesis is correct.

Minor fluctuations during short periods prove nothing other than a coincidental relationship.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Russ]

<< That sure sounds like the &quot;EMOTIONAL&quot; response bantered at any NRA rally >>



Tripleshot,

Mine was a factual response. In every country that has implemented gun registration throughout history, confiscation has been the eventual result. Look it up. Either that, or give me some OTHER logical reason to register gun owners. There are none.

Russ, NCNE

 

[rahvin]

Russ,

If you read that report, hell skim it, you will see that crime rates increased substainally during 33-44, the great depression. Total crime has been increasing linearly, it is a result of a linearly increasing population. The crime index for the data YOU provided supports my theorm. You have presented NO other data to contradict it. I'm sorry, but I read it somewhere does not correlate. I'm unaware of jobless data in the 60's so I cannot comment on an increase during that decade other than the substainal growth of america at the time.

I'm not saying that the two are inrevocably linked but there is a relationship, even if it's just a weak one.

 

[GL]

Tominator,

Please excuse my ambiguity. That should have been &quot;Take all statistics reported by the media...&quot; In other words, I meant take the stories the media reports on statistics with a grain of salt. If you read my post I pretty much bash on the media's interpretation of statistics (they just don't know how to interpret them, nor can they properly create them - i.e. I hate those stupid radio caller polls that supposedly imply a truth!), which is why I tell people to take them with a grain of salt.

Of course I'm not going to ignore these facts! I'm running the numbers through Minitab looking at scatter plots as we speak

-GL