By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Chicago Concealed Carry: Murder Rate Drops to Lowest in 56 Years

Kasz216 on 09 April 2014
mornelithe said:

How do you look at th

Well, as I said originally, I don't really care either way.  Enforce the laws we already have, or ban weapons altogether.  But, ignoring laws on the books is obnoxious, and targeting assault weapons when hand guns are the overwhelming cause of gun violence is silly.  I don't presume to have all the answers, but I hate looking at the gun related homicides in the US yearly, and think there's nothing we can do to stop it.

You're also pointing out the peaks in Australia, but overlooking the peaks in the US.  Why is that?  It doesn't help your end of the discussion to point out faulty logic on my part, while using the same faulty logic in yours.  Case in point...32,163 people died by firearms in 2011.  That number hasn't steadily declined...that number has steadily increased since 1999.

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So, what does any of this mean?  Are we on the right track?  Or the wrong track?  While that number still climbs yearly, I consider us being on the wrong track.

 

The US has a higher rising population.  Which is why i totally did point out the peaks of the US.  Using an average per 100,000.

Which you ignored as being "Not proffesional looking"... 

Which the second graph is from the Center for Disease Control... 

despite the data being 100% accurate.

Using straight numbers in an arguement is silly when you have the per 100,000 numbers at your disposal.



Around the Network
sc94597 on 09 April 2014
Kasz216 said:
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:

Yeah, I read the article.  I simply noted that over the period since the ban, gun violence has dropped.  There are a few spikes, absolutely, but, overall the effect seems to be positive, right?

Alright, but total homicides has remained pretty much constant. Does it matter if somebody is killed by a gun or something else? 

You know, your arguement would be a lot more compelling if you did a little more research.

As the same thing is true in the US more or less.

I'm going to leave these here for you....

 

http://socialcapitalreview.org/new-doj-report-u-s-firearm-homicide-rate-at-18-year-low/

Hm? I was speaking of Australia, which according to:

 http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

  • The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).

It seems pretty constant to me. Or did you misquote? 



Kasz216 on 09 April 2014
sc94597 said:
Kasz216 said:

Hm? I was speaking of Australia, which according to:

 http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

  • The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).

It seems pretty constant to me. Or did you misquote? 


My point was that in this thread you've been conceding points that totally aren't even really true when you compare directly to the US.  US violent crime is down, and so are murders during the same time period.



mornelithe on 09 April 2014
Kasz216 said:
mornelithe said:

How do you look at th

Well, as I said originally, I don't really care either way.  Enforce the laws we already have, or ban weapons altogether.  But, ignoring laws on the books is obnoxious, and targeting assault weapons when hand guns are the overwhelming cause of gun violence is silly.  I don't presume to have all the answers, but I hate looking at the gun related homicides in the US yearly, and think there's nothing we can do to stop it.

You're also pointing out the peaks in Australia, but overlooking the peaks in the US.  Why is that?  It doesn't help your end of the discussion to point out faulty logic on my part, while using the same faulty logic in yours.  Case in point...32,163 people died by firearms in 2011.  That number hasn't steadily declined...that number has steadily increased since 1999.

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So, what does any of this mean?  Are we on the right track?  Or the wrong track?  While that number still climbs yearly, I consider us being on the wrong track.

 

The US has a higher rising population.  Which is why i totally did point out the peaks of the US.  Using an average per 100,000.

Which you ignored as being "Not proffesional looking"

 

Yeah...but can you blame me?  Way too many faux sites out there to trust something that looks like that.



Mr Khan on 09 April 2014
Kasz216 said:
sc94597 said:
Kasz216 said:

Hm? I was speaking of Australia, which according to:

 http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

  • The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).

It seems pretty constant to me. Or did you misquote? 


My point was that in this thread you've been conceding points that totally aren't even really true when you compare directly to the US.  US violent crime is down, and so are murders during the same time period.

Australia is as good a parallel as you're going to find in terms of culture and geography.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
sc94597 on 09 April 2014
Kasz216 said:
sc94597 said:
Kasz216 said:

Hm? I was speaking of Australia, which according to:

 http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

  • The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).

It seems pretty constant to me. Or did you misquote? 


My point was that in this thread you've been conceding points that totally aren't even really true when you compare directly to the US.  US violent crime is down, and so are murders during the same time period.

Actually I provided a paper* (from mornelithe's link) which disputed that claim as well, but figured bringing it up again would distract from my initial main point and lead to a digression, that people will kill regardless of whether or not they have guns available. The reason why I said "alright" was because we were using the same statistics and in those statistics, it does mention a decrease in gun crime. I conceded to the observation (according to those statistics) but not that it is caused by gun control. Was there an example of any other concession? 

* http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf (found in this post.) 

 



Kasz216 on 09 April 2014
mornelithe said:
Kasz216 said:
mornelithe said:

 

Yeah...but can you blame me?  Way too many faux sites out there to trust something that looks like that.


Well yes.   They match up pretty evenly with your own numbers.  

I mean, maybe it's just because I have a deep statistical background but after i saw your post with the rank numbers I identified them as the same dataset immediatly.

It's generally why though I think statistics and the staticial method should be something that is taught in the 7th or 8th grade.


It's REALLY hard to use statistics lie to people with even a background in statistics. 

 

Generally, i look up the data for something, then just look for the first google image graph that has the same data, simply because it illustrates a point better.



gergroy on 09 April 2014

wow, the people in this thread sure love their graphs!



Kasz216 on 09 April 2014
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
sc94597 said:
Kasz216 said:

Hm? I was speaking of Australia, which according to:

 http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

  • The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).

It seems pretty constant to me. Or did you misquote? 


My point was that in this thread you've been conceding points that totally aren't even really true when you compare directly to the US.  US violent crime is down, and so are murders during the same time period.

Australia is as good a parallel as you're going to find in terms of culture and geography.

Which only goes to strengthen my point.

The US had huge murder and crime rate drops involving guns (and just in general) just like Australia.   They actually happened quicker and sooner.

 

Generally these statistical arguements in regards to crime mostly seem to be done by statisicians chasing correlations they already know exist, and publishing it to make a point.

And correlations likely caused by a third factor. (Or third, fourth and fifth factor).

 

 

 



NobleTeam360 on 09 April 2014
kitler53 said:
as a resident of downtown chicago all i can say is,.. nope. our murder rate has been dropping since about 1992.


Link?