twa Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Where do you get that number? probably same place he got that abortion numbers were down(which they ain't) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 1068 now.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html this will get dismissed via an ad hominem regarding the source. You are seriously going to source a number that is tallied using Twitter? Who verifies that number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 probably same place he got that abortion numbers were down(which they ain't) More misinformation..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States ---------- Post added January-20th-2013 at 05:28 PM ---------- You are seriously going to source a number that is tallied using Twitter? Who verifies that number? My job is not to do your homework for you. You got a better source? Let's see how many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 More misinformation.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States. I'm not the one misinformed and using old data that ends when it started to increase again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 My job is not to do your homework for you.That is bull****. You post an unverified number as proof of something and then try to push off responsibility or verifying onto me? Let me catch you flogging someone for sourcing FoxNews or Worldnetdaily. Cause everyone knows Slate has a lean. And it ain't to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Gun ownership is increasing. More people own guns than ever before in our history. Yet crime involving guns is on a continuing downward slope, as are murders overall and with firearms. Homicide involving firearm (including justifiable) is down 15% over the last 4 years according to the FBI. Without massive reform of gun control and despite the expiration of the AWB. When the debate over the expiration of said ban was being held, it was stated that violent crime and murder would increase. That hasn't happened. Why do we all of a sudden need to massively overhaul laws that regulate firearms when all statistics indicate crimes related to firearms are on a steady decline? Popeman, here are some other points to consider on this framing that I see from time to time in argument. I suggest that because it suits your (and others') views, you (and others) decide the relationship between the stats (while not questioning their usefulness at all for the same likely reasons) is either causal, one to another (more guns lowers crime), or proof of a negative (proliferation/access/type of guns have no relation to incidence of gun related crimes). LE agencies largely (understatement) attribute such seeming "improvement" in various "crime stats" (beyond the typical random swings in all such statistical matters) to advances in data accumulation and transmission, and improvements in training and delivery of enforcement services even within troubling budget cutbacks, all as preventative and deterrent measures that impact these figures, when they even claim specific reasons for perceived reduction at all. The closet "second place" explanations in the mix (not surprisingly) is methodology of how statistics are presented for political or funding-gathering/presetting purposes, and a number of other relevant sociological matters that vary in effect over time, that all play a role in such statistics (i.e. sometimes, and perhaps counter-intuitively to some folks, bad economic conditions run concurrent with lower crimes of violent categories while other categories show increases--like theft, armed robbery, b&e etc which is not counterintuitive). No one I have ever been around (of many) or read in any related area has attributed any of of the statistical changes you note to "more private citizens having more guns" (nor that human nature has suddenly changed in any statistically meaningful degree). All of that even meets basic common sense/logical demands when simply thinking on the matter,without any in-depth exposure to it. I submit it's all just also reasonably deduced. I also will repeat again, that as most people I read of, or know, who are around a great deal of LEO, the majority from the front ranks to every level of leadership consider the proliferation/access/type of civilian armament more a very real part of the problem, not a part of any solution to violent crime. That's just a widely-held opinion among that population. That is also not meant to be conflated with extremist "anti-gun" positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Popeman, here are some other points to consider on this framing that I see from time to time in argument. I suggest that because it suits your (and others') views, you (and others) decide the relationship between the stats (while not questioning their usefulness at all for the same likely reasons) is either causal, one to another (more guns lowers crime), or proof of a negative (proliferation/access/type of guns have no relation to incidence of gun related crimes). LE agencies largely (understatement) attribute such seeming "improvement" in various "crime stats" (beyond the typical random swings in all such statistical matters) to advances in data accumulation and transmission, and improvements in training and delivery of enforcement services even within troubling budget cutbacks, all as preventative and deterrent measures that impact these figures, when they even claim specific reasons for perceived reduction at all. The closet "second place" explanations in the mix (not surprisingly) is methodology of how statistics are presented for political or funding-gathering/presetting purposes, and a number of other relevant sociological matters that vary in effect over time, that all play a role in such statistics (i.e. sometimes, and perhaps counter-intuitively to some folks, bad economic conditions run concurrent with lower crimes of violent categories while other categories show increases--like theft, armed robbery, b&e etc which is not counterintuitive). No one I have ever been around (of many) or read in any related area has attributed any of of the statistical changes you note to "more private citizens having more guns" (nor that human nature has suddenly changed in any statistically meaningful degree). All of that even meets basic common sense/logical demands when simply thinking on the matter,without any in-depth exposure to it. I submit it's all just also reasonably deduced. I also will repeat again, that as most people I read of, or know, who are around a great deal of LEO, the majority from the front ranks to every level of leadership consider the proliferation/access/type of civilian armament more a very real part of the problem, not a part of any solution to violent crime. That's just a widely-held opinion among that population. That is also not meant to be conflated with extremist "anti-gun" positions. I never stated more guns equals less crimes. I am simply pointing out that as our society moves forward, crime is decreasing. And that as such, massive overhaul of gun control is not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I never stated more guns equals less crimes. I am simply pointing out that as our society moves forward, crime is decreasing. And that as such, massive overhaul of gun control is not necessary. Well, as long as you obviously spent some real time considering all the matters I addressed there before such a prompt and summary (among other descriptors) dismissal. "Discussion" on this site so often so interesting. <grin smiley> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 1068 now.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html this will get dismissed via an ad hominem regarding the source. How about dismissed for content? The sight allows you to click on an icon to see the name of the person killed and a link to the source news story of the info. A murderer killed himself... http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22267573/woman-fatally-shot-at-greenwood-village-apartments A guy who killed his wife apparently with an ice pick, killed himself with a gun... http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Mother-killed-in-S-Houton-murder-suicide-4154759.php A guy who tried to kill his wife kills himself... http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/12/27/Found-body-may-be-shooting-suspect/UPI-76321356641679/ Self defense - Woman Kills Ex-Boyfriend Who Invades Her Home http://www.cbs7kosa.com/news/details.asp?ID=40287 The police killed someone in a standoff - no other explanation given http://www.kcbd.com/story/20419324/police-standoff-in-tahoka-turns-deadly Police: Grandpa killed teen's attacker http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/police-grandpa-killed-teens-attacker Now I'm not going to say that there aren't a whole bunch of deaths that fit the point of your argument there. But in all honesty these types of deaths were found on at least 50% of the links I clicked on. Others, were examples of murders by the type of people least likely to obey gun laws and none that I clicked on included assault weapons (although there may be some). Bottom line: A site that makes no distinction between justifiable use of a firearm for self defense or by police and murders/accidental deaths is NOT a reliable source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 But in all honesty these types of deaths were found on at least 50% of the links I clicked on. Just pointing out that, in your attempt to tell us to ignore facts, because of somebody's agenda, you here declare that "at least 50%" of the data you looked at, fit a certain pattern, and you chose to post a sample where 100% of them fit. (You then followed up with the Standard Talking Point as to why the data that didn't fit your agenda should be ignored, too.) Bottom line: A site that makes no distinction between justifiable use of a firearm for self defense or by police and murders/accidental deaths is NOT a reliable source. You then conclude by announcing that we should ignore the web site that posts all of the data (instead of the poster who cherry picks it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Just pointing out that, in your attempt to tell us to ignore facts, because of somebody's agenda, you here declare that "at least 50%" of the data you looked at, fit a certain pattern, and you chose to post a sample where 100% of them fit. (You then followed up with the Standard Talking Point as to why the data that didn't fit your agenda should be ignored, too.) You then conclude by announcing that we should ignore the web site that posts all of the data (instead of the poster who cherry picks it.) Just pointing out that you are lying when you say I'm telling anyone to ignore facts. And your entire post is focused on me rather than the fact that the data is flawed no matter how you paint it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 Just pointing out that you are lying when you say I'm telling anyone to ignore facts.And your entire post is focused on me rather than the fact that the data is flawed no matter how you paint it. Really? I could have sworn that I accurately quoted your concluding sentence. And I could have sworn that pointing out that YOU are cherry picking data, and that the site you're telling us not to pay attention to, isn't, was focused on pointing out a flaw in your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Really? I could have sworn that I accurately quoted your concluding sentence. And I could have sworn that pointing out that YOU are cherry picking data, and that the site you're telling us not to pay attention to, isn't, was focused on pointing out a flaw in your argument. Maybe you are having trouble reading. Let me help. Here is my concluding sentence: Bottom line: A site that makes no distinction between justifiable use of a firearm for self defense or by police and murders/accidental deaths is NOT a reliable source. What part of this is telling anyone what to do? I said it is not a reliable source for data and it isn't. Furthermore, I admitted to cherry picking data and admitted that there is data that supports ASF's argument here: Now I'm not going to say that there aren't a whole bunch of deaths that fit the point of your argument there. But in all honesty these types of deaths were found on at least 50% of the links I clicked on. Others, were examples of murders by the type of people least likely to obey gun laws and none that I clicked on included assault weapons (although there may be some). So the question is, are you going to continue to attack me or are you going to address the fact that the data is flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Ah. Got it. Your only point was to announce that the site which he (and you) used, shouldn't be used. Because that site (which, apparently, documents every single thing it says) "is not reliable". My apologies. Please by all means, explain to me the the logic of using the death of criminals shot by police or in self defense by citizens to argue for gun control. That was the reason ASF posted those figures. Because IN THAT CONTEXT, THE DATA IS FLAWED. Is that clear enough for you? And once again, Show me the exact words where I said the site should not be used. Not your crazy interpretation of my words. But my words exactly as they were written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 That is bull****. You post an unverified number as proof of something and then try to push off responsibility or verifying onto me? Let me catch you flogging someone for sourcing FoxNews or Worldnetdaily. Cause everyone knows Slate has a lean. And it ain't to the right. Please, I posted a source which cites the number, if you have a problem with the number take it up with the source, remember the number sn't mine. ---------- Post added January-20th-2013 at 09:07 PM ---------- I'm not the one misinformed and using old data that ends when it started to increase again Yes....HUGE increases.....full of crap you are. http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Yes....HUGE increases.....full of crap you are. http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html Has it gone up or down the last 5 yrs Mr Going Down? probably doesn't track the increased use of abortificants either. like the gun death stats,little things matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Has it gone up or down the last 5 yrs Mr Going Down? probably doesn't track the increased use of abortificants either. It spiked in 2006 under Bush then declined then has flatlined. like the gun death stats,little things matter Where is this increase you keep insisting is real? Or is this going to be like the unemployment numbers where ya'll have Republican math and Democrat math depending on which one is in the White House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Please, I posted a source which cites the number, if you have a problem with the number take it up with the source, remember the number sn't mine. Amother bull**** answer. You can't use a number that can't be verified and expect to be taken seriously. You know this, which is why you deflect and tell me to take it up with the source. YOU are responsible for posting accurate information, or taking the FLAMING when you post biased information. I used the FBI numbers through the last available year. You use Slate in conjunction with Twitter. When someone posts anything with a bias, you are one of the first one complaining about it. And yet here you are posting an unverifiable number from a biased source.---------- Post added January-21st-2013 at 09:25 AM ---------- Popeman, here are some other points to consider on this framing that I see from time to time in argument. I suggest that because it suits your (and others') views, you (and others) decide the relationship between the stats (while not questioning their usefulness at all for the same likely reasons) is either causal, one to another (more guns lowers crime), or proof of a negative (proliferation/access/type of guns have no relation to incidence of gun related crimes). LE agencies largely (understatement) attribute such seeming "improvement" in various "crime stats" (beyond the typical random swings in all such statistical matters) to advances in data accumulation and transmission, and improvements in training and delivery of enforcement services even within troubling budget cutbacks, all as preventative and deterrent measures that impact these figures, when they even claim specific reasons for perceived reduction at all. I have never proffered that more guns equals less crime. However, the declining violent crime stats coupled with the incline of gun ownership would indicate, in a vacuum, that access to a firearm correlates with a reduction in violent crime. However, coming from a family with both a military and LEA background, I know that advances in technology, information sharing, and resource knowledge has a large influence on declining violent crimes. That, and we as a society are evolving. But the incline of gun ownership and the decline in violent crimes, in the absence of massive gun control overhaul, can not be ignored. Quite a few in this thread ignore and dismiss any evidence that doesn’t support massive overhaul of gun control. The closet "second place" explanations in the mix (not surprisingly) is methodology of how statistics are presented for political or funding-gathering/presetting purposes, and a number of other relevant sociological matters that vary in effect over time, that all play a role in such statistics (i.e. sometimes, and perhaps counter-intuitively to some folks, bad economic conditions run concurrent with lower crimes of violent categories while other categories show increases--like theft, armed robbery, b&e etc which is not counterintuitive). So are you trying to imply that the FBI numbers are not trustworthy and the methodology used to collect the statistics is faulty by design?No one I have ever been around (of many) or read in any related area has attributed any of of the statistical changes you note to "more private citizens having more guns" (nor that human nature has suddenly changed in any statistically meaningful degree). And again, neither have I. All of that even meets basic common sense/logical demands when simply thinking on the matter, without any in-depth exposure to it. I submit it's all just also reasonably deduced. I also will repeat again, that as most people I read of, or know, who are around a great deal of LEO, the majority from the front ranks to every level of leadership consider the proliferation/access/type of civilian armament more a very real part of the problem, not a part of any solution to violent crime. That's just a widely-held opinion among that population. That is also not meant to be conflated with extremist "anti-gun" positions. One would think, I would imagine by nature, that in order to support the “proliferation/access/type of civilian armament more a very real part of the problem” would need to see supporting evidence. In looking for that evidence, one cannot ignore evidence to the counter, simply because it does not support the hypothesis. I am all for common sense gun control.I have offered my thoughts on a good place to start in other threads. Banning 10 round magazines, “scary” looking rifles, and making the registration process so painful the average citizen will give up (see NYC, Chicago, and DC) are not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Amother bull**** answer. You can't use a number that can't be verified and expect to be taken seriously. You know this, which is why you deflect and tell me to take it up with the source. YOU are responsible for posting accurate information, or taking the FLAMING when you post biased information. I used the FBI numbers through the last available year. You use Slate in conjunction with Twitter. When someone posts anything with a bias, you are one of the first one complaining about it. And yet here you are posting an unverifiable number from a biased source. Yet there is no other source for the number, so consider it an estimate, one that given the average gun homicide rates of previous years doesn't seem far off the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Yet there is no other source for the number, so consider it an estimate, one that given the average gun homicide rates of previous years doesn't seem far off the mark.Well, estimates are great when they are created using accepted methodology. This number is a WAG based on twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Well, estimates are great when they are created using accepted methodology. This number is a WAG based on twitter. Yet if this method results in a reliable estimate then the objection is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Yet if this method results in a reliable estimate then the objection is moot.That reasoning can be appliued to ANY source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 That reasoning can be appliued to ANY source. Only if they produce accurate results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 I may be thinking of another thread, but I was under the impression that somebody else (Diehard?) was able to find links to every one of the deaths cited in ASF's statistics. (And to use those links to argue why they shouldn't be counted.) Suggestion: How about, instead of loudly and repeatedly demanding that the entire number must be ignored, regardless of how well it tracks with previous numbers, or anything else, merely because the word "twitter" is mentioned, somewhere; how about giving some arguments why you think that, even if correct, you disagree with the relevance of the number? For example: How about arguing that maybe the statistics on how many people intentionally kill themselves with guns, might not be a really compelling argument for why we need more gun control? That's an argument that I can see some logic behind. Although, I can see some valid logic behind arguing why some of the other numbers that the "pro gun" people would like to throw out, maybe shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. For example, the number of cases in which a police officer shoots somebody. Yeah, those cases aren't counted as murders . OTOH, I would certainly hope that most of those cases, the reason why the cop shot that person, was because the criminal had a gun. (Despite numerous anecdotal evidence to the contrary, I still tend to assume that police only shoot armed people.) I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that maybe, if there were fewer gun-packing criminals, then maybe there'd be fewer "cop kills criminal" statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.