NationStates Jolt Archive

Somehow, your analogy fails in regards to the recent (2006) crime increase in Florida (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR/2006/CIF_annual06.pdf), where residents have been issued over 1 Million CCW permits and also despite the fact that Florida has enacted a "castle doctrine", "Stand Your Ground" law (2005).

So you are still trying to use a strawman by pointing out one state?

Somehow, your analogy fails in regards to the recent (2006) crime increase in Florida (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR/2006/CIF_annual06.pdf), where residents have been issued over 1 Million CCW permits and also despite the fact that Florida has enacted a "castle doctrine", "Stand Your Ground" law (2005).

Murder increased 28% overall, but with firearms, that increased 42%.

Robbery increased 13.4% overall, but with a firearm it increased 20.2%

Aggravated Assault increased 0.1%, but with a firearm it increased 5.8%

Forced Burglary increased 3.6% and Attemped Entry increased 8.5%, despite the castle doctrine.



And I'm still waiting for the anwer to my question as to where the crime levels increased and what the ownership/CCW rates were in those areas.

Or are you claiming that the levels for all are consistent across the state?

Crime is going down nationwide. Is it spiking? That i will wait for the current report to come out.
Actually in 2005 and 2006 violent crime rate (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html)actually increased.

You did admit that crime was dropping and yet, you try to deny it.
Where did I deny that? I think you are reading too much into other posters interpretation. Pay attention to my answers and not the words that they try to put in my mouth.

Admit that crime dropped and I will answer your question.
I already answered that....see below:

Um it says that crime is um well I don know, DOWN?

Actually it has started to increase lately, but yeah, crime has been decreasing. Now, exactly what caused the crime to decrease?
Now.... will you answer the question???

I already answered that....see below:

Good boy. Admitting you were wrong is the first step in recovery.

Now.... will you answer the question???

Any number of things.

Good boy. Admitting you were wrong is the first step in recovery.

Any number of things.
In other words, you don't know. No more cat and mouse. I won't put you on ignore but consider this my last reply to you in this regard. :D

In other words, you don't know. No more cat and mouse. I won't put you on ignore but consider this my last reply to you in this regard. :D

Neither do you so do not act like you know either :D

And I'm still waiting for the anwer to my question as to where the crime levels increased and what the ownership/CCW rates were in those areas.
The crime levels increased in the areas reported in the link I provided. I doubt even you know the ownership/CCW rates are in those areas? The State as a whole saw an increase of 2.9% in violent crime, 1.1% increase in non-violent crime and a 1.4% increase in total crime.

Or are you claiming that the levels for all are consistent across the state?
I wasn't making any claims....I was reporting facts.

If you want correlation, that seems to be what the NRA and others have been pushing in regards to Florida, although I do believe their "facts" have been extremely misleading.

Governor Bush Notes Correlation Between Armed, Law-Abiding Citizens And Florida’s Lower Crime Rate (http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2319)

Friday, July 14, 2006

When queried this week about his state’s declining crime rate, Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) told reporters from the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, “Law abiding citizens that have guns for protection actually probably are part of the reason we have a lower crime rate.”

Florida is one of 40 states with Right-to-Carry statutes that allow their law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. In addition, the state last year passed NRA-backed “Castle Doctrine” legislation that allows citizens to “stand their ground” and defend themselves against an attacker in a place where they have a legal right to be.

Florida’s crime rate dropped for the 14th straight year and the crime rate is currently at its lowest level since 1971.
Yet in 2006, murders with firearms increased 42%, robberies with firearms increased 20%, aggravated assault with firearms increased 5.8%, and forced entry burglaries increased 4.1%.

The crime levels increased in the areas reported in the link I provided. I doubt even you know the ownership/CCW rates are in those areas? The State as a whole saw an increase of 2.9% in violent crime, 1.1% increase in non-violent crime and a 1.4% increase in total crime.

Since I'm not the one making the correlation, I asked you to defend it.


I wasn't making any claims....I was reporting facts.

And I asked you questions based on those facts.

If you want correlation, that seems to be what the NRA and others have been pushing in regards to Florida, although I do believe their "facts" have been extremely misleading.

*snip irrelevant cutnpaste*

Nice ad hominem. Did I mention Bush or the NRA? Nope, try again.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/about/variables_affecting_crime.html

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.

Quite the contrary....

Most gun laws enforced in the nation today are in the District of Columbia.

Highest crime rate in the nation today is in ..one guess here...District of Columbia.

Is it really DC? I thought Detroit, Baltimore, and Richmond all came before DC?

Since I'm not the one making the correlation, I asked you to defend it.
I wasn't making a correlation. That is what the NRA and people such as yourself like to imply.

And I asked you questions based on those facts.
I was reporting raw data. Don't you have the data regarding CCW in every area of Florida?

Nice ad hominem. Did I mention Bush or the NRA? Nope, try again.
You get your talking points from the NRA and pro gun sites? The NRA even has a page entitled More guns, less crime. I notice that they conveniently don't put the = sign in their title because it would be claiming absolute causality which they can't get away with.

I wasn't making a correlation. That is what the NRA and people such as yourself like to imply.

Careful CH, you might puncture the screen w/ that nose extending so much.

Edit: So you weren't showing a tendency of two groups of data to vary together?


I was reporting raw data. Don't you have the data regarding CCW in every area of Florida?

Never said I did.


You get your talking points from the NRA and pro gun sites? The NRA even has a page entitled More guns, less crime. I notice that they conveniently don't put the = sign in their title because it would be claiming absolute causality which they can't get away with.

Nice ad hominem. And you've moved the goal posts as well. First it was the NRA and Bush. Now it's the NRA and "pro-gun sites".

You're legs are going to get tired from all that hopping.

(as he trolls through more ancient threads for more selectively edited quotes)

edit:As you're trolling through them CH, why don't you look at all the times you repeated the statements that various states had "zero gun control" or how many times you used "trace data" for statistics even after it was shown that's not what they're for. You know, just like you did in the last thread again. Pathetic.

Nice ad hominem. And you've moved the goal posts as well. First it was the NRA and Bush. Now it's the NRA and "pro-gun sites".

You're legs are going to get tired from all that hopping.

(as he trolls through more ancient threads for selectively edited quotes)

He does have a tendency to move the goal posts.

if students were allowed to carry guns on campus, this would have never had happened.

if students were allowed to carry guns on campus, this would have never had happened.

*thread goes 'boom' again*

*thread goes 'boom' again*

:confused:

Why are you confused? I mean a comment like that did explode the thread because it was a stupid comment.

I'm sort of offended you find the comment stupid. The reality is if would be school shooters knew that students were able to defend themselves and neutralise the school shooter quickly, there wouldn't be near the amount of school tragedies we see today. And if teachers were allow to carry as well, the numbers would drop even further.

:confused:

Why are you confused? I mean a comment like that did explode the thread because it was a stupid comment.

All of you people with guns and not one of you...not one of you with the decency to put this thread out of its misery.

For shame.

*draws a sword and runs the thread through*

I'm sort of offended you find the comment stupid. The reality is if would be school shooters knew that students were able to defend themselves and neutralise the school shooter quickly, there wouldn't be near the amount of school tragedies we see today. And if teachers were allow to carry as well, the numbers would drop even further.

But you really can't say it wouldn't have happened at all. Unstable minds are not reasonable.

All of you people with guns and not one of you...not one of you with the decency to put this thread out of its misery.

For shame.

*draws a sword and runs the thread through*

*watches as thread rises from the dead and starts eating nearby living threads*

But you really can't say it wouldn't have happened at all. Unstable minds are not reasonable.

they may happen, but not to the degree or frequency we currently see. An unstable mind is only unstable until it gets a bullet through it. Its sad but its the truth.

they may happen, but not to the degree or frequency we currently see. An unstable mind is only unstable until it gets a bullet through it. Its sad but its the truth.

People that are on the edge might be more likely to cause harm, and sooner, if they had a gun in their possession. If everyone was armed, it would be a great deal easier to shoot someone, wether it be in self-defense, or self-offense...

Not many people have weapons, therefore criminals acquire say, knives, to have an advantage.

Not many people have a gun, therefore criminals acquire one to have an advantage.

Everyone has a gun, therefore people wanting to cause harm, get a bigger gun or maybe some grenades.

And so forth.

People that are on the edge might be more likely to cause harm, and sooner, if they had a gun in their possession. If everyone was armed, it would be a great deal easier to shoot someone, wether it be in self-defense, or self-offense...

Not many people have weapons, therefore criminals acquire say, knives, to have an advantage.

Not many people have a gun, therefore criminals acquire one to have an advantage.

Everyone has a gun, therefore people wanting to cause harm, get a bigger gun or maybe some grenades.

And so forth.

its incredibly difficult to get grenades. I think your scenario is sort of a logical fallacy.

its incredibly difficult to get grenades. I think your scenario is sort of a logical fallacy.

That may be true(though it is not a logical fallacy), but my point is that if you increase the force of the citizen, the criminal, be it a robber/rapist/murderer/troller, will just increase their own force in order to accomplish their goals.

I thought it was obvious in all of history, we keep trying to be better than the next guy, stronger, more capable of doing what we want to do, more able to impose our will on others.

So to discuss gun control, then I would have to purchase a gun, so that I can understand the gun and the problem? Ummmm no thanks.

I understand the gun quite well. You put bullets in and squeeze the trigger, and you either kill/wound people/animals or you put holes in little paper targets.

Your lack of understanding is blatently obvious by reading your post.

As I said, people such as yourself and people in the NRA will never accomplish anything in terms of "gun control"

That may be true(though it is not a logical fallacy), but my point is that if you increase the force of the citizen, the criminal, be it a robber/rapist/murderer/troller, will just increase their own force in order to accomplish their goals.

I thought it was obvious in all of history, we keep trying to be better than the next guy, stronger, more capable of doing what we want to do, more able to impose our will on others.

Actually, it's a slippery slope and also puts the onus of crime onto the victim of crime.

Actually, it's a slippery slope and also puts the onus of crime onto the victim of crime.

I disagree.

How can something be a slippery slope if it is actually true?

It doesn't put the onus of crime onto the victim, it just shows that a criminal will use force to achieve goals, wether or not the force has to be increased...

I disagree.

How can something be a slippery slope if it is actually true?

It doesn't put the onus of crime onto the victim, it just shows that a criminal will use force to achieve goals, wether or not the force has to be increased...

You're assuming the criminal mindset needs the excuse of others having weapons to up arm themselves thereby putting the onus on the non-criminal.

You're assuming the criminal mindset needs the excuse of others having weapons to up arm themselves thereby putting the onus on the non-criminal.

Yeeah..no.

You are assuming that I am assuming that.

I was just pointing something out.

What I assume is that some criminals will use guns and some won't, irregardless of the status of their victims. Some will increase their arsenal in order to overcome tougher victims.

Yeeah..no.

You are assuming that I am assuming that.

I was just pointing something out.

What I assume is that some criminals will use guns and some won't, irregardless of the status of their victims. Some will increase their arsenal in order to overcome tougher victims.

You just said it.

Some may do that. Some may increase just to have more street cred. Some may increase just to terrorize people more in general. Some may move on to easier targets.

You just said it.

Some may do that. Some may increase just to have more street cred. Some may increase just to terrorize people more in general. Some may move on to easier targets.

Okay.

Yes?

I never said that my statement was 100% true 100% of the time.

I don't think more guns would reduce or increase gun crime substantially. Or rather, that it would be a variable that would actually effect the increase/decrease.

Your lack of understanding is blatently obvious by reading your post.

As I said, people such as yourself and people in the NRA will never accomplish anything in terms of "gun control"
You do realize that my reply to you was somewhat facetious, considering that your proposal was somewhat inane?

You do realize that my reply to you was somewhat facetious, considering that your proposal was somewhat inane?

Mebbe.

Careful CH, you might puncture the screen w/ that nose extending so much.
You pick the cutest ways to call me a liar. :p

Edit: So you weren't showing a tendency of two groups of data to vary together?
I think the latest crime stats from Florida are going to cause you pro gun types a huge headache.

Never said I did.
I wonder how many legal interventions there were, and if there were any, how would they compare to the previous year? It would be interesting to know?

Nice ad hominem. And you've moved the goal posts as well. First it was the NRA and Bush. Now it's the NRA and "pro-gun sites".
Well, you tend to regurgitate their weak talking points. Speaking of goalposts, the Canadian playing field is wider and longer. :D

edit:As you're trolling through them CH, why don't you look at all the times you repeated the statements that various states had "zero gun control" or how many times you used "trace data" for statistics even after it was shown that's not what they're for. You know, just like you did in the last thread again. Pathetic.
You knew what I meant by zero gun control (NRA star of approval for Alaska, along with Vermont). As far as the "trace data" is concerned, you even used the same stats on the same level in your rebuttals.

However, I guess NY State must be doing something right? That is compared to Florida? :D

I'm sort of offended you find the comment stupid. The reality is if would be school shooters knew that students were able to defend themselves and neutralise the school shooter quickly, there wouldn't be near the amount of school tragedies we see today. And if teachers were allow to carry as well, the numbers would drop even further.
So, you believe that adding tens of millions of guns going to school each day would reduce the bloodshed? What do you base your guess on?

if gay people existed, then wheres all the gay children from the gay sex?

if gay people existed, then wheres all the gay children from the gay sex?

Necromancer!

Off-topic necromancer!

*casts banish*

A-hah! Yes, the exact same views expressed in the last 147 gun/anti-gun threads were incapable of swaying a single person to a different viewpoint, so this one thread, using the identical arguments previously laid out will be the one that is sucessful in swaying the hearts and minds of anyone who reads it to the approrpriate point of view.

Honestly, gun control arguments went beyond moronic in this place twenty threads ago.

Now you all just look like idiots.

So, you believe that adding tens of millions of guns going to school each day would reduce the bloodshed? What do you base your guess on?

the idea of deterrence.