Jump to content
ydoaPs

Yay, GUNS!

Recommended Posts

 

That's a somewhat misleading statement. In the above article, and reported by the NRA here is an increase in the number of background checks associated with gun purchases. This is then interpreted as an indicator of an absolute increase in the number of gun purchases. However, even if the correlation rings true, it is an indicator that more guns are being bought by a smaller pool of gun owners, as there is direct evidence that the number of households which own firearms has been on a long, steady decline. To summarize, the number of gun owners is declining, but the average number of guns each of them owns is increasing.

 

Or to interpret the same evidence another way, fatalities are down, and so is the number of people who own guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then lets look a a different statistic. What percentage of homicide victims have criminal pasts.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

http://www.steakleylawfirm.com/index.php/blogs/entry/usa-today-statistics-show-that-criminals-target-each-other

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/19/edward-flynn/85-percent-shooting-suspects-and-victims-milwaukee/

http://www.wpr.org/gun-related-deaths-increase-prior-criminal-records-common-link-among-shooters-victims

 

Somewhere north of 70%. Since not all criminals have a criminal record, one should assume that even a larger number of homicide victims are criminals. Every occupation has it's risks. I'm not interested in reducing the rate of homicides of criminals.

 

So don't have an arrest history and you are much less likely to be a victim of homicide.

Edited by waitforufo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then lets look a a different statistic.

 

Logical fallacy of avoiding the issue.

 

 

So don't have an arrest history and you are much less likely to be a victim of homicide.

 

Or alternatively, don't be poor - or possibly don't use autocorrelation and gross simplification to try and make a trite and ignorant argument. To make a general statement, it always seems like anti gun control arguments are founded on gross simplification - that we can separate people into criminals and responsible gun owners, and ignore all the complexities and nuances that make gun rights and controls a complex and nuanced discussion.

Edited by Arete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gun control folks are always combining all firearms fatalities and injuries into the same bucket and saying look we are all in danger. When the numbers are broken down however it all becomes complex and nuanced for you.

 

Let's look at the WaPo article

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw

 

FT_15.10.13_gunViolence.png

 

So suicides make up ~60% of firearm fatalities, but the US does not have an unusual suicide rate. The US is at 50, which is comparable to France at 47 and Austria at 54.

 

Then I just pointed out that the vast majority US homicide victims are criminals.

 

So you come back with don't be poor. Really? I think most poor people would be insulted by the association you are making which is poor people are criminals. I'm sure that the vast majority of poor people are good, honest, law abiding citizens. It should not be surprising that criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living.

Edited by waitforufo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gun control folks are always combining all firearms fatalities and injuries into the same bucket and saying look we are all in danger. When the numbers are broken down however it all becomes complex and nuanced for you.

 

Let's look at the WaPo article

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw

 

FT_15.10.13_gunViolence.png

 

So suicides make up ~60% of firearm fatalities, but the US does not have an unusual suicide rate. The US is at 50, which is comparable to France at 47 and Austria at 54.

 

Then I just pointed out that the vast majority US homicide victims are criminals.

 

So you come back with don't be poor. Really? I think most poor people would be insulted by the association you are making which is poor people are criminals. I'm sure that the vast majority of poor people are good, honest, law abiding citizens. It should not be surprising that criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living.

You can be labelled a criminal for being caught with pot, or cheating on your taxes. Not a useful distinction. The person most likely to kill you is your spouse. A history of domestic violence, infidelity, and substance abuse, when combined with a gun in the house is your number one culprit for gun violence. It's not a stranger breaking into your house.

 

Please clarify what you are talking about regarding suicide. Minimizing the 19000 deaths per year isn't a priority in your world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should not be surprising that criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living.

Citation needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or to interpret the same evidence another way, fatalities are down, and so is the number of people who own guns.

Quite right.

 

 

When the numbers are broken down however it all becomes complex and nuanced for you.

 

Let's look at the WaPo article

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw

 

FT_15.10.13_gunViolence.png

That is a positive trend, and one we should celebrate. Your comments about suicide are also valid (though largely irrelevant since we're talking about minimizing the deaths one individual can impose on others, not on themselves).

 

Less death is better, and your charts show us trending in the right direction. Fully agree. Let's keep that downward trend coming, but we must not lose sight of the broader perspective.

 

While we're better than we used to be, we're hardly a poster child for avoiding preventable firearm deaths. We are, indeed, a poster child, but unfortunately for all the wrong reasons:

 

tumblr_nvt3w8G3I01suxeeyo1_500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you come back with don't be poor. Really?

 

You're kind of proving my point here in that you don't seem to be able to comprehend a complex and nuanced argument. The whole sentence was:

 

Or alternatively, don't be poor - or possibly don't use autocorrelation and gross simplification to try and make a trite and ignorant argument.

n.b. - the bold

 

There is a correlation between socioeconomic stature and the likelihood of being a victim of a violent crime, and also between race and being murdered (just like between arrest history and being a victim of a violent crime). Mentioning these facts is not offensive. The fact these correlations exist, and the use of them to some how excuse the homicide rate as you did IS offensive.

 

I presented the issue of poverty as it was an example of a flawed argument equivalent to your flawed point about arrest history and victimization rates. Just like prior arrest record - race, age, gender, marriage status of your parents, etc etc. all correlate with both perpetration and victimization of violent crime, and none of those issues occur in a vacuum.

 

Statistically speaking, these factors are autocorrelated i.e. the effect of one is not isolated from the effect of another. Therefore a statement like:

 

I'm not interested in reducing the rate of homicides of criminals.

 

is at best ignorant, and at worst, callously dishonest.

 

What causes someone to be more likely to commit, and be a victim of a violent crime is complex, and nuanced. Simplifying it to "most people who get murdered are criminals and therefore I don't care" is pretty much a ostrich impression.

Edited by Arete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More People should wear weapon for protection from terrorists. Terrorists have weapon everywhere, Paris attacks proved it. Police should be more armed. USA are more protected from bad officials because weapon is free there.

Edited by DimaMazin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not interested in reducing the rate of homicides of criminals.
I am.

 

If there is an unprotected class, there are no protected ones. Except the very wealthy, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am.

 

If there is an unprotected class, there are no protected ones. Except the very wealthy, of course.

 

Laws love protects all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kind of proving my point here in that you don't seem to be able to comprehend a complex and nuanced argument. The whole sentence was:

 

 

 

 

n.b. - the bold

 

There is a correlation between socioeconomic stature and the likelihood of being a victim of a violent crime, and also between race and being murdered (just like between arrest history and being a victim of a violent crime). Mentioning these facts is not offensive. The fact these correlations exist, and the use of them to some how excuse the homicide rate as you did IS offensive.

 

I presented the issue of poverty as it was an example of a flawed argument equivalent to your flawed point about arrest history and victimization rates. Just like prior arrest record - race, age, gender, marriage status of your parents, etc etc. all correlate with both perpetration and victimization of violent crime, and none of those issues occur in a vacuum.

 

Statistically speaking, these factors are autocorrelated i.e. the effect of one is not isolated from the effect of another. Therefore a statement like:

 

 

 

is at best ignorant, and at worst, callously dishonest.

 

What causes someone to be more likely to commit, and be a victim of a violent crime is complex, and nuanced. Simplifying it to "most people who get murdered are criminals and therefore I don't care" is pretty much a ostrich impression.

 

The last 3 presidents of the United States all have admitted to past drug use yet none are considered criminals because they were not caught. Many rape victims do not report it, spouses are abused and do not report, children are molested and no one finds out, relative steal from relatives and don't report it, etc, etc, etc. Who is a criminal is generally a matter of who is caught. Drugs flow openly on most college campus yet police do not raid colleges and turn students into criminals. Poor people are arrested at higher rates but that do not mean they necessarily commit more crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last 3 presidents of the United States all have admitted to past drug use yet none are considered criminals because they were not caught. Many rape victims do not report it, spouses are abused and do not report, children are molested and no one finds out, relative steal from relatives and don't report it, etc, etc, etc. Who is a criminal is generally a matter of who is caught. Drugs flow openly on most college campus yet police do not raid colleges and turn students into criminals. Poor people are arrested at higher rates but that do not mean they necessarily commit more crime.

 

 

Agreed with a caveat; poverty is a strong motivator for crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with a caveat; poverty is a strong motivator for crime.

 

Specific types of crime but not all crime broadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a somewhat misleading statement. In the above article, and reported by the NRA here is an increase in the number of background checks associated with gun purchases. This is then interpreted as an indicator of an absolute increase in the number of gun purchases. However, even if the correlation rings true, it is an indicator that more guns are being bought by a smaller pool of gun owners, as there is direct evidence that the number of households which own firearms has been on a long, steady decline. To summarize, the number of gun owners is declining, but the average number of guns each of them owns is increasing.

 

Or to interpret the same evidence another way, fatalities are down, and so is the number of people who own guns.

 

Alas this could just be supply and demand, an indication of who buys guns and why.

It might be linked to support for capital punishment. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1478601X.2015.1048546?journalCode=gjup20

Edited by MonDie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another one.

 

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/nopd_release_of_murder_victims.html

 

 

Serpas said the connections between murder victims and their prior records became apparent to him soon after he joined the NOPD as a rookie in 1980. "Sadly, throughout my career and in three different states, it's gotten more obvious that criminal records predict victimization," Serpas said.

According to NOPD data, 64 percent of murder victims have been arrested for a felony. That story line is not unique to New Orleans.
"If you're not involved in the drug trade and you don't have a criminal record, the likelihood that you're going to be involved in a homicide or shooting is very small," said Mallory O'Brien, head of the Homicide Review Commission in Milwaukee, where 75 percent of homicide victims had prior arrests.
In the late 1950s, criminologist Marvin Wolfgang coined a new term, "victim-precipitated homicides," in which the victim plays a role in his own death by, say, starting a fight or wielding a weapon. Thirty years later, a massive study of homicide in Chicago looked at 20,000 victims over a 25-year span and found that nearly 60 percent had an arrest record.

So the fact that avoiding criminal behavior makes the likelihood of being involve in homicide or shooting is very small has been know for quite some time.

 

 

"The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It's a fact," said David Kennedy, head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control. "When we act as if this fact of prior criminal activity isn't true, we send the signal that everybody's at risk all the time."

Kennedy emphasizes that every city also has "innocent victims who didn't do anything wrong and never have." But statistically, those victims are "an exception," he said.
But even in the most dangerous neighborhoods, Kennedy noted, most people do not have an elevated risk of getting killed. "Ignoring or concealing this fact can make an entire city feel like they're living in a dangerous world, when in fact they're not," he said.

Note "extensive criminal histories" and that non criminal victims are "an exception."

 

The best part of the quote is "Ignoring or concealing this fact can make an entire city feel like they're living in a dangerous world, when in fact they're not," All gun control enthusiast ignore or conceal this fact. Convincing people that they live in a dangerous world is their key tactic in convincing people that gun control is necessary. It is not necessary. In fact free access to guns mostly decreases the criminal population.

 

Then there is the old canard about acquaintance murders. Well criminals have relatives, friends, and acquaintances, too. 'Acquaintance' can describe many sorts of acquaintances -- drug dealers are acquainted with their customers, gang members are acquainted with their rivals, and prostitutes are acquainted with their johns. Yes, if you are acquainted with lots of criminals, you might fall victim to an acquaintance murder by one of those criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the "prior convictions" control for the thousands of bogus arrests and convictions?

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLTpcK80irdQhN7zAGc83RJzhP5DHi2FKg&v=dTAAZlYMmuU#action=share

 

There is a very sick culture of demonizing minorities, planting evidence, and false convictions. All stats on previous convictions are suspect as the investigations show the horrific injustice present in the states.

Edited by Willie71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citation needed

As I'm sure you already know, he of course won't be able to provide one because the exact opposite of his claim is true. Most of those in poverty have jobs and often work more than 40 hours per week yet still struggle to get by. In fact, a sizable percentage have more than one job, but facts don't seem to matter to some people who would prefer repeating zombie lies / long debunked myths.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/12/heres-why-10-4-million-american-workers-are-still-in-poverty/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should not be surprising that criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living.

Still waiting for your supporting information. I'd hate to think you made something up to support a narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another one.

 

You still appear to missing the point. No one is denying that having a criminal record is positively correlated with the likelihood of being ahomicide victim - that issue is not in question. However, you still appear to be failing to recognize that the likelihood of having a "criminal past" is linked to a number of other issues. For e.g. If you are forced to rely on a public defender who has less than 10 minutes to prepare your case, you could have a 95% chance of accepting a plea bargain. As such, poverty is directly linked to the likelihood you will have criminal convictions, even if you haven't committed a crime.

 

Ignoring such autocorrelation makes positions like:

 

I'm not interested in reducing the rate of homicides of criminals.

 

So don't have an arrest history and you are much less likely to be a victim of homicide.

 

and dalliances on the moral high horse like:

 

So you come back with don't be poor. Really? I think most poor people would be insulted by the association you are making which is poor people are criminals. I'm sure that the vast majority of poor people are good, honest, law abiding citizens.

 

either astoundingly ignorant, or plain dishonest.

Edited by Arete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm sure you already know, he of course won't be able to provide one because the exact opposite of his claim is true. Most of those in poverty have jobs and often work more than 40 hours per week yet still struggle to get by. In fact, .

 

Who work more than 40 hours per week in USA aren't poor in our world.

Maybe Trump is poor relative to Putin ? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who work more than 40 hours per week in USA aren't poor in our world.

Maybe Trump is poor relative to Putin ? :wacko:

Poor is when people earn less than the cost of living. It's pretty simple. If you work 40h, and can't afford rent, groceries, and utilities, you are poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor is when people earn less than the cost of living. It's pretty simple. If you work 40h, and can't afford rent, groceries, and utilities, you are poor.

Yes. Poor has less rights to do a crime. But we shouldn't fight for such rights.

Edited by DimaMazin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for your supporting information. I'd hate to think you made something up to support a narrative.

Sorry, I had to go on a business trip.

 

My comment was based on the control theory of crime causation.

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403000066.html

 

 

 

Strain and social learning theorists ask, Why do people engage in crime? They then focus on the factors that push or entice people into committing criminal acts. Control theorists, however, begin with a rather different question. They ask, Why do people conform? Unlike strain and social learning theorists, control theorists take crime for granted. They argue that all people have needs and desires that are more easily satisfied through crime than through legal channels. For example, it is much easier to steal money than to work for it. So in the eyes of control theorists, crime requires no special explanation: it is often the most expedient way to get what one wants. Rather than explaining why people engage in crime, we need to explain why they do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.