Yet another school shooting.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

Of course the crime rate went down - for just a little bit because NO one was in New Orleans. See the links I posted about the crime rate in NO being 10X higher then the rest of the nation - do I really need to post the same link over and over, why don't you just read them the first time?

Nagin refuses to comply with any court order. The NRA has had to file contempt of court charges on him to try and get him to comply. Here is a copy of the contempt of court papers in PDF format.

Since you, uBeR did not care to read the links I posted, here are some exerts.

This article was from 2005:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8999837

Thats right 10X the national average!!!

This article is from July 2007

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/77754.php

Murder rate jumped 14% then 69%. Now, where are your links to back up your claims that the murder rate went down?? PROVE IT!!!!

As far as the crime rate going up across the nation, you really need to do your research better then just quoting websites with stats you do not understand.

The increase in crime across the nation is from the criminals leaving N.O. and bringing crime to their communities. Houston Texas was one of the hardest hit. Crime rates along with violent crimes soared right after the influx of people from N.O.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-01-04ng.html

Houstons crime rate jumped 70% after the people from N.O. showed up. I live just north of Houston, we were hearing of the jump in crime 2 years ago. The sale of guns to law abiding citizens also jumped because of all the home invasions going on in houston. You should ahve heard the news coming out of Houston about the home invasions. Doors getting kicked in, people getting beat up, robbed and murdered. Those kinds of stories went on and on.

Back to the illegal gun pick up:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=7272


No news on the new orleans gun confiscations huh?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20050914a.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=new+o...ient=firefox-a
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9834
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...611939,00.html

You're making terrible arguments, and you're using evidence to support them. Lol.

First you point out that crime is high, but no where near what it was pre-Katrina. Like I said earlier, New Orleans was the deadliest city in America before Katrina. Your argument supports my claim. So how come you earlier made the argument the confiscation is causing disastrous crime sprees when crime was much higher before the confiscation? That argument doesn't add up.

Your next argument is that I don't understand what I'm reading, and that national crime didn't really go up, or that it's because of Katrina evacuees. Each of those are clearly preposterous.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Crime (as well as FBI data), the violent crime rate in Louisiana per 100,000 population was 790.24 for the 15 years prior to 2005 (1990-2004 average if you weren't sure). In 2005, it was 595.4--that's the lowest it's been since 1977! In Louisiana, violent crime dropped markedly from 2004 to 2005, while the national average increased. Again, why hasn't the confiscation of guns made violent crime skyrocket, as your earlier argument suggested? I think your misinterpreting the data. Yes, crime is high in LA and NO, but it always has been (long before gun confiscation). But now, it's quite lower than what it has been in the years prior to Katrina. Again, why isn't crime higher after the gun confiscation? I'll tell you: It had nothing to do with less guns.

(You also might be saying to yourself, "But that's Louisiana, and not really representative of New Orleans." From the horse's own mouth though, the New Orleans Police Department statistics show that both murder and violent crimed totals dropped significantly from 2005 to 2006. In 2005, murder decreased significantly from 2004, and violent crime decreased a whopping 35.6%.)

Your next argument, which was apart of your last (New Orleans evacuees caused violent crime to go up across the nation), was that crime in Houston went up. That's the same argument I made in my last post. Houston is where most of the evacuees wound up. And what happened after they arrived? Crime went up. But as I stated earlier, in Houston there aren't tough gun laws and no mayors and confiscating their guns. Your argument was that Nagin's confiscation was causing crime to go up in New Orleans, but it's also going up where New Orleans evacuees are going but beyond Nagin's jurisdiction. Your argument is really falling apart.

RE: NRA & gun confiscation. Yes, NRA and SAF filed motion to hold Nagin/Riley in contempt, and the judge strongly reprimanded the defense counsel (i.e. the city's attorney, Joseph DiRosa, but not Nagin or Riley). As I said earlier there was a case to be heard in June that I haven't seen the result from.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by uBeR

First you point out that crime is high, but no where near what it was pre-Katrina.
Your argument was that Nagin's confiscation was causing crime to go up in New Orleans, but it's also going up where New Orleans evacuees are going but beyond Nagin's jurisdiction. Your argument is really falling apart.

Just about all of the information from pre-katrina was left out on purpose. I did know you wanted pre-katrina numbers. Ten years ago 48 hours, or 60 minutes ran several articles on N.O. and new york. Both cities were tied for the murder capital of the USA. The reporters also pointed out that NO and NT had the most strict gun laws in the nation.

The cities with the highest gun ownership had the lowest murder rates.

States with right to carry laws had even lower murder rates. The crime rates are going down, in part to several states passing right to carry laws. While some stats like California and new york continue to pass more gun laws, and their crime rates go up.

You are making claims but are posting no links to back them up. How about a link to the information you found at the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Crime as well as FBI websites?

You wanted information to show the crime rates are going up, I posted them. Now please post some evidence to back up your claims.

I bore of this debate - how about some proof to the so called "facts" you are quoting? Looks like I am the ONLY one posting any kind of link or data to back up my claim.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

Got facts or external links to back up your statements?

Not that I doubt that england has lower murder rates, but I would like to see how much lower and what devices were used in the murders.

Then there are a lot of cultural differences as well.

ekiM made the argument England is disarmed and that it has a much lower murder rate than the U.S. (and that Switzerland is heavily armed, but also with a much lower murder rate).

In reply to kev, the UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the Western world. Yes, it's possible to own a gun, but it's very difficult (self-defense is not a legitimate reason to own one in the UK).

According to UN data, there were 1.4 murders for every 100,000 population in the UK in 2000. (In the U.S. there was 4.2 in 2000 and 5.5 in 2004.)

According to this here report, there were 766 homicides in England and Wales for 2005/2006 (including the London Bombings, which killed 52). Forty-nine of these victims were shot. The most common method of killing was from a sharp object. The next most common were hitting/kicking and asphyxiation. Shooting only accounted for less than 7%.

From the FBI, 70% of the homicide in the U.S. was committed with a firearm. So there you go.

[~kev~]

US links please? Looks like you and I both live in the USA - so I really could not care less about the murder rate in England or Eurpoe.

If I remember right, the topic was the nations (USA) crime rate, and New Orleans crime rate.

Originally Posted by uBeR

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Crime (as well as FBI data), the violent crime rate in Louisiana per 100,000 population was 790.24 for the 15 years prior to 2005 (1990-2004 average if you weren't sure). In 2005, it was 595.4--that's the lowest it's been since 1977! In Louisiana, violent crime dropped markedly from 2004 to 2005, while the national average increased.

^
|
|
Links Please

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

You are making claims but are posting no links to back them up. How about a link to the information you found at the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Crime as well as FBI websites?

You wanted information to show the crime rates are going up, I posted them. Now please post some evidence to back up your claims.

I bore of this debate - how about some proof to the so called "facts" you are quoting? Looks like I am the ONLY one posting any kind of link or data to back up my claim.

Actually, I am posting data and evidence. But if you don't believe me and think I would lie about data, review for yourself:

Bureau of Justice Statistics on crime and violent crime for both national average as well as state level data.
FBI data with the same things.
New Orleans crime statistics from the NOPD.

Further,
FBI sez more than 70% of homicides in the U.S. from a firearm, whereas it was 7% in England and Wales.

Originally Posted by ~kev~

US links please? Looks like you and I both live in the USA - so I really could not care less about the murder rate in England or Eurpoe.

If I remember right, the topic was the nations (USA) crime rate, and New Orleans crime rate.

Actually, you asked for facts about ekiM's claim. I presented them in my above post.

Originally Posted by ~kev~

The cities with the highest gun ownership had the lowest murder rates.

States with right to carry laws had even lower murder rates. The crime rates are going down, in part to several states passing right to carry laws. While some stats like California and new york continue to pass more gun laws, and their crime rates go up.

Actually, SME and I have already gone over this. It ends up this is absolutely not true. John Lott is the champion of this idea, and it turns out Lott has fabricated survey data, his research has been heavily criticized, and that no one has been able to replicate his results that suggest right-to-carry laws deter crime.

[Zydell]

“I donʼt give a fuck about America, I hope that everyone in the USA goes out buying fireams and shoot each other.”

That's pretty rude isnʼt it?

[Bubbles]

I friggin need a way to ignore topics. I keep coming back to this thread only to find myself fucking annoyed. :--((

[YomMamasHouse]

US links please? Looks like you and I both live in the USA - so I really could not care less about the murder rate in England or Europe.

You really should care, the fact that the amount of guns is higher than your country's in some areas, and lower in others, and at the same time the crime rate is lower than in the US should be enough to show that guns are not a cure for violent crime. As much as the sun revolves around the United States, other first world countries can be used as a comparison.

[halo]

There's a very simple principle behind us having strict gun ownership laws in the UK. A principle that can't be disputed. If you do not have access to a gun then you can't shoot someone. That makes it more difficult to kill someone, and much less palatable, so logically, if people don't have guns then less people will be murdered. Would you sacrifice having the right to own a gun to save an inderterminate number of lives? Over here it wasn't a big deal to us because, on the whole, we've never really been that bothered about owning guns.

In America it's a more difficult issue because there's such a strong culture and heritage of gun ownership. It's also much more difficult because there are such a large number of guns already in circulation there that aren't just going to disappear with a change in the law. It would be a change looking to the long term, a vision for the future.

I think America does get a bad press over this issue though because shootings there often gain global media coverage, as does the fact of America's gun culture. A lot of people outside the US seem to think that gun crime there is a much bigger problem than it actually is and that it's a much less safe place to be than it is.

Many people see it as an open and shut case. We don't need to kill things so we don't need guns. As such they have no time for a country where firearms seem to be held in such high regard because it seems illogical. I don't think that's particularly fair but I can quite understand it.

[SME]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Lol I'm lying while stating facts? That's an oxymoron. You refuse to even discuss the points I've been raising and instead argue fallaciously, so I'll just assume henceforth you either cannot comprehend or willfully ignore the data.

Except I provide link after link showing that donohue has been discredited about Lott and about abortion vs crime rates. You keep trying to argue semantics but I'm not playing that game. Lott is right and donohue and you are wrong. You can assume anything you want but that wont make you less wrong.


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=270126

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1114...ays_us_opinion

Abortion Legalization and the Crime Rate


Not surprisingly, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's new book "Freakonomics" ignores their academic critics, but Steve Landsburg's review disappointingly does so too (Leisure & Arts, April 13). Take just the book's first claim: Unwanted children are more likely to grow up to be criminals and that abortion can therefore reduce crime, a plausible idea that has been around since the beginning of the abortion debate. Yet, despite Messrs. Levitt and Dubner's claims, legalization doesn't explain 75% of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s, and if anything the reverse is true.
Their data had a serious error. The Planned Parenthood affiliated organization that supplied them with the data incorrectly claimed that when abortion was legalized during the late 1960s and early 1970s, states went from a complete ban to complete legalization, but abortions had been allowed before complete legalization when the life or health of the mother was endangered. The Centers for Disease Control data show that before Roe v. Wade many states that had allowed abortions only when the life or health of the mother was endangered actually had higher abortion rates than states where it was completely "legal."
If Messrs. Levitt and Dubner were correct, crime rates should have first started falling among younger people who were first born after legalization. Only as they aged would you start seeing crime fall among older criminals. But in fact the precise opposite is true. Murder rates during the 1990s first started falling for the oldest criminals and very last for the youngest.
John R. Lott Jr.
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
Washington
Levitt has since responded that three of his regressions in the 2004 paper with Donohue use the Centers for Disease Control abortion numbers. The problem with this as Levitt presumably knows is that these are not the disaggreated regressions that directly link abortions for when a particular age group was born with the murder rate when those people were older. This disaggregated type of data was what Whitley and I were studying, and it is the paper with Whitly that I was referring to. Even those regressions have problems since he uses the arrest data from the Uniform Crime Reports and not the Supplemental Homicide Data that more directly links the murders with the age and other characteristics of the offender, but the three regressions that Donohue and Levitt look at only use his poorly constructed and unable to be duplicated "effective abortion rate" data that is an average of abortions across all ages using weights from 1985 (unexplained why only one year is used to construct these weights, though my paper with Whitley shows how sensitive these weights are to the year used).

Hope that helps...

[uBeR]

Donohue and Levitt have not been discredit is any sense. If anyone, it's Lott who's been discredited. You supplied a link of Lott responding to Donohue (and an non-academic op-ed), but that in no way means he's discredited. It means Lott disagrees with Donohue, which is not surprising, because Donohue and the rest of the academic community disagree with Lott. If you can't accept Donohue's and at least a half-dozen other's research that directly contradict Lott's claim, then hopefully you can accept the National Academy of Science, a member of the ICSU, whose conclusion is that right-to-carry laws do not deter crime. But since you've already ignored that fact on several occasions, I'm doubtful.

[SME]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Donohue and Levitt have not been discredit is any sense. If anyone, it's Lott who's been discredited.

I've provided the same type of "proof" you have. You provided Donohue's (et al) opinion that Lott was wrong, I provided Lott's (et al) response that donohue and friends were wrong. Even after 2002, Lott has responded and Donohue has avoided.
Here's 2 years worth of Lott's responses and Donohue's hiding:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyd...nddonohue.html

In 2003 Lott wrote the book "The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong" which also includes the FACT that more guns = less crime and how what anti-gun types think is wrong.

Furthermore, Since you're such a Lott fan, here's his opinion on how Parker VS DC is going to go:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/F...Ban091307.html

Enjoy!

[uBeR]

I provided Donohue and a half-dozen other peer-reviewed research that directly contradicts Lott's research, including the NAS, but there's plenty more than that. Donohue is simply one the more vocal critics. Thus, Lott's claims are not fact, as your keen on saying, but rather a debunked theory.

D.C. v. Parker will probably favor D.C. if it ever does get heard by the Supreme Court. Even if Parker wins, it probably won't have a grand effect, because not very many places today still restrict the ownership of firearms.

[SME]

Originally Posted by uBeR

I provided Donohue and a half-dozen other peer-reviewed research that directly contradicts Lott's research, including the NAS, but there's plenty more than that. Donohue is simply one the more vocal critics. Thus, Lott's claims are not fact, as your keen on saying, but rather a debunked theory.

D.C. v. Parker will probably favor D.C. if it ever does get heard by the Supreme Court. Even if Parker wins, it probably won't have a grand effect, because not very many places today still restrict the ownership of firearms.

Not all of Lott's links were written by Lott alone, he has other "back up" too. SSDD.

Again, the odds of DC winning are little to nothing and when DC loses it'll have the "grand effect" of finally deciding the collective vs individual right debate (neither Miller nor Emerson did) which will have far more reaching implications on laws written dependent on flawed Constitutional reasoning.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by SME

Again, the odds of DC winning are little to nothing and when DC loses it'll have the "grand effect" of finally deciding the collective vs individual right debate (neither Miller nor Emerson did) which will have far more reaching implications on laws written dependent on flawed Constitutional reasoning.

If only this problem was limited to this issue...sadly it's not.

[SME]

Originally Posted by Innoc

If only this problem was limited to this issue...sadly it's not.

Most of California's gun laws were made under that mistaken assumption. While it wont immediately overturn other state's laws it will be used as precident and the flood of litigation will force many states to take another look at theirlaws, rather than fight dozens, hundreds or thousands of lawsuits.

[uBeR]

Have you ever considered you're the one misinterpreting the Amendment? Or is it just a coincidence that hundreds of judges across nation who have studied law for years and have been practicing it probably their entire careers have got it all wrong, and Mr. Joe Schmo on the forums and a handful of judges know the true meaning of the Framers?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Have you ever considered you're the one misinterpreting the Amendment? Or is it just a coincidence that hundreds of judges across nation who have studied law for years and have been practicing it probably their entire careers have got it all wrong, and Mr. Joe Schmo on the forums and a handful of judges know the true meaning of the Framers?

Uber,

A Judge not even considering original intent or Constitutional law is not unique or rare. Even in the US Circuit Courts. They do get it wrong.

[SME]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Have you ever considered you're the one misinterpreting the Amendment? Or is it just a coincidence that hundreds of judges across nation who have studied law for years and have been practicing it probably their entire careers have got it all wrong, and Mr. Joe Schmo on the forums and a handful of judges know the true meaning of the Framers?

I've considered the other side but after reading other experts and doing my own research, I don't come to the same conclusions as the anti-gun liberals. Have you ever considered that you have it wrong? I used to think that the 2nd meant that citizens could have ANY kind of weapon the military has but after doing the research it's clear that wasn't the case but the 2nd is an individual right.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by SME

I used to think that the 2nd meant that citizens could have ANY kind of weapon the military has

Emphasis. How long ago was that?