When looking at the data presented, for the percentage of homicides to remain flat with an overall decrease would mean that the number of gun related homicides dropped as a whole by the same overall rate if the percentage remained the same.
Second ... it seems that you might be trying to infer that homicides are the only kind of gun violence.
1) Yes. The question is why. Red had posited the question of how it related to CCW permits. I think that if it was related to CCW permits that the percentage would have changed as well. Instead what I think we are seeing is simply a decline in overall violence, but the number of times a knive/bat/fist is used instead of a gun is remaining fairly constant. I'd suggest that many other factors have equal or greater influence vs. the number of CCWs issued - education rates, overall levels of prosperity, immigration concentrations,... lots of possibilities out there. CCW may be a factor as well, but I doubt it is *the* factor.
2) No, just trying to infer something from the data, and that was the data point on hand. Had the statistic been self inflicted wounds, or pistol whippings by entertainers at night clubs I probably would have used that.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 7, 2013 - 2:35pm
islander wrote:
From your link: However, the justice department study also suggested that the percentage of US homicides committed with a firearm had held steady at around 70% between 1993-2011.
This would imply to me that the rates for all homicides have fallen. The availability of guns did not have an impact on the percentage of times that they were used in violence, but perhaps in the frequency. I would argue that it's a much more complex mixing board, and there are thousands of knobs being turned to tune what we see going on around us. Suggesting that any one knob (no matter how big and red) is the sole factor in the outcome is probably not very realistic.
Two quick things ...
When looking at the data presented, for the percentage of homicides to remain flat with an overall decrease would mean that the number of gun related homicides dropped as a whole by the same overall rate if the percentage remained the same.
Second ... it seems that you might be trying to infer that homicides are the only kind of gun violence.
From your link: However, the justice department study also suggested that the percentage of US homicides committed with a firearm had held steady at around 70% between 1993-2011.
This would imply to me that the rates for all homicides have fallen. The availability of guns did not have an impact on the percentage of times that they were used in violence, but perhaps in the frequency. I would argue that it's a much more complex mixing board, and there are thousands of knobs being turned to tune what we see going on around us. Suggesting that any one knob (no matter how big and red) is the sole factor in the outcome is probably not very realistic.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 7, 2013 - 1:58pm
sirdroseph wrote:
This is what jumped out at me:
Despite the drop, some 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than two decades ago and only 12% think it is lower, according to the Pew Reseach Center.
Wonder why that is hmmmm?
That is / was a no brainer as I read it. A forgone conclusion.
It is a direct result of the government-media propaganda partnership.
Heared this a couple of days ago. There is a direct correlation between more guns and less gun violence by vicinity.
There is also the glaring racial component that gun control advocates are loathe to discuss.
This is what jumped out at me:
Gun homicides in the United States have fallen sharply since peaking in 1993, two studies have found.
The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics said firearms-related homicides had dropped to 11,101 in 2011 from 18,253 - a reduction of 39%.
Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center found gun homicides per 100,000 people fell to 3.6% in 2010 from 7% in 1993.
Both reports found the rate of non-lethal crimes involving guns had also fallen significantly over that period.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, an office of the justice department, found that non-fatal firearms crimes dropped by 69% from 1.5 million to 467,300 during the period under study.
However, the justice department study also suggested that the percentage of US homicides committed with a firearm had held steady at around 70% between 1993-2011.
Despite the drop, some 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than two decades ago and only 12% think it is lower, according to the Pew Reseach Center.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 7, 2013 - 7:36am
Lazy8 wrote:
OK, "panicking" is perhaps too strong a term, but I was trying to be economical with the verbiage. And yes, their concern is legitimate, it's just damned inconvenient during gopher season.
If you want to see what I'm worried about look at Boston—APCs roaming the streets, agents in combat gear treating the town like Sadr City. An entire federal department dedicated to projecting power within our borders. Did I mention the agencies gathering intelligence on us, by any means necessary? An executive branch that had to have its nominee for CIA director held hostage in the Senate to admit that drone strikes (which it insists are within its power anywhere in the world, used against anybody, for any reason) would be illegal within our borders.
Those are some things I'm worried about. Infantile obsession over conspiracy theories about elaborate plots to buy up all the ammo are a distraction from dealing with these things, and they sap our credibility.
Point taken. Perhaps we can all move forward to more rational discussions now that the 'thorn' as MsJudi pointed out has left us and there is much less interference in discussions that can throw things off track.
The scenes witnessed in Boston concern me for the same reasons.
Pamicking or putting their money where their mouth is ?
Perhaps those hoarding are seeing legislation being passed making it harder, not easier to posess and acting pre-empitively in anticpation of out right bans coming down the road. Perhaps those hoarding see an attack on law abiding gun owning citizens for no good reasons what so ever.
Saying that hoarders and those seeking to simply own guns at reasonable prices are simply doing so only out of panick is no less a CT as well.
One cannot blame Congress without blaming ourselves. It is we who elected them and continue to elect them.
And kindly explain this growing militarism of our governemnt as you see it and why ... without using any CT's as support.
OK, "panicking" is perhaps too strong a term, but I was trying to be economical with the verbiage. And yes, their concern is legitimate, it's just damned inconvenient during gopher season.
If you want to see what I'm worried about look at Boston—APCs roaming the streets, agents in combat gear treating the town like Sadr City. An entire federal department dedicated to projecting power within our borders. Did I mention the agencies gathering intelligence on us, by any means necessary? An executive branch that had to have its nominee for CIA director held hostage in the Senate to admit that drone strikes (which it insists are within its power anywhere in the world, used against anybody, for any reason) would be illegal within our borders.
Those are some things I'm worried about. Infantile obsession over conspiracy theories about elaborate plots to buy up all the ammo are a distraction from dealing with these things, and they sap our credibility.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 7, 2013 - 12:56am
Lazy8 wrote:
sirdroseph wrote:
Look I don't even care about the reason or conspiracy, bottom line is they are buying a lot of ammo and making it harder for me to get. Whatever curbs that, makes the shelves fill up again and brings the prices down so I can get some is really all I care about at this time. I look at it like this, say you are an avid coffee drinker and for whatever reason, doesn't matter, the government wants it too and starts to buy enormous quantities to get a bulk deal ergo making it more difficult for the average joe citizen coffee drinker to acquire coffee because of decreased supply or increased price than it would seem logical to like a law passed limiting the government from buying up all the coffee. This is how I see it, I do not discard conspiracies, I just view them as interesting bits of information that ultimately I don't have any control over anyway. I just want to be able to buy ammo at a reasonable price and am pretty sure DHS has enough ammo, if the scenario you described comes to light it will either be a setup to make the law look bad ala all of the administrations drama queen over hyped effects of the sequestration or plain old incompetence which is the more likely reason. IMO I think you are over dramatizing any negative affects this bill could have it passed. I just think it is a reasonable limit to free up supply availability nothing more, nothing less.
When you post links to conspiracy theories and promote them here, yes you do care about them. You're endorsing them.
No, they aren't buying a lot of ammo—as has been shown over and over in this very topic. When you say that you are spreading a lie.
We have an ammo shortage for the same reason you can't find an AR for sale anywhere, for the same reason the machine shops I work with that also make gun parts aren't even answering the phone: people who want to own guns have panicked and are hoarding.
No, you do not discard conspiracies, even when shown they are fake. You repeat them. I don't know why you do this and I'm not going to speculate, and the tiny audience here isn't going to make a difference on the national scene when you clown it up and act the fool.
But when members of congress—f#cking congress for chrissake—set themselves up for ridicule on this scale this has gone far past far enough. This is going to cost us. The measure won't pass, and it probably isn't intended to. It's grandstanding. But you can bet your last case of MREs that it will be used against anybody who wants to restrain the growing militarism of our government.
Pamicking or putting their money where their mouth is ?
Perhaps those hoarding are seeing legislation being passed making it harder, not easier to posess and acting pre-empitively in anticpation of out right bans coming down the road. Perhaps those hoarding see an attack on law abiding gun owning citizens for no good reasons what so ever.
Saying that hoarders and those seeking to simply own guns at reasonable prices are simply doing so only out of panick is no less a CT as well.
One cannot blame Congress without blaming ourselves. It is we who elected them and continue to elect them.
And kindly explain this growing militarism of our governemnt as you see it and why ... without using any CT's as support.
usually I stick to the gardening thread, god only knows why I passed through this wreck of a thread but glad to see you having fun with Swiss mom.
