Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2005 > Re: "Right to bear arms"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: "Right to bear arms"
|
|
| Robert Wagner 2005-01-07, 3:55 am |
| On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Peter Lacey wrote:
>
>Often, just the presence of a gun can deter criminal activity - and
>states with concealed-carry policies have lower rates of violent crimes.
> Check #4 on this link...
>
>http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
"4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons
have lower crime rates than those that don't.
True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private
citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent
lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39
percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons.
In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all
right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more
than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number
of violent crimes committed with guns."
That's NOT true. Let's look at New York, which has the strictest gun
laws, compared to Texas, which has the loosest.
"In the year 2000 New York had an estimated population of 18,976,457
which ranked the state 3rd in population. For that year the State of
New York had a total Crime Index of 3,099.6 reported incidents per
100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 40th highest total
Crime Index. For Violent Crime New York had a reported incident rate
of 553.9 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 12th
highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes
against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 2,545.7
per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 45th highest. Also in
the year 2000 New York had 5.0 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the
state as having the 23rd highest rate for Murder.
In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which
ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas
had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000
people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime
Index. For Violent Crime Texas had a reported incident rate of 545.1
per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 13th highest
occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against
Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,410.4 per
100,000 people, which ranked as the state 10th highest. Also in the
year 2000 Texas had 5.9 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state
as having the 17th highest rate for Murder."
Because you're in Alabama, which also has liberal gun laws:
"In the year 2000 Alabama had an estimated population of 4,447,100
which ranked the state 23rd in population. For that year the State of
Alabama had a total Crime Index of 4,545.9 reported incidents per
100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 15th highest total
Crime Index. For Violent Crime Alabama had a reported incident rate of
486.2 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 20th
highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes
against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,059.7
per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 15th highest. Also in
the year 2000 Alabama had 7.4 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the
state as having the 6th highest rate for Murder."
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/alcrime.htm
The idea that gun ownership is a deterrent to crime is a fiction.
Statistics have never shown that to be true.They show that Bubba,
pissed becase his wife is screwing the neighbor, participates in a
crime of passion that wouldn't have occurred sans firearms.
I've shown that more than 50% of firearm deaths result from crimes of
passion rather than premeditated or criminal activities. When you add
accidents and suicides, the total goes to more than 80%.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-01-07, 8:55 am |
| In article <5ctrt0hp92ks9v0oe0p8bu3he2eqbqsqpt@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>"4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons
>have lower crime rates than those that don't.
>
>True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private
>citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent
>lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39
>percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons.
>In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all
>right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more
>than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number
>of violent crimes committed with guns."
>
>That's NOT true. Let's look at New York, which has the strictest gun
>laws, compared to Texas, which has the loosest.
No, Mr Wagner... let's look at the 31 states that have 'shall issue' laws
and compare their numbers to the 29 states that don't, just as the
assertion made. A sampling of three, as you gave, may not reflect the
data found in a sampling of fifty, as one familiar with statistics might
be able to tell you.
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2005-01-07, 3:55 pm |
| On 7 Jan 2005 05:21:28 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <5ctrt0hp92ks9v0oe0p8bu3he2eqbqsqpt@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>No, Mr Wagner... let's look at the 31 states that have 'shall issue' laws
>and compare their numbers to the 29 states that don't, just as the
>assertion made. A sampling of three, as you gave, may not reflect the
>data found in a sampling of fifty, as one familiar with statistics might
>be able to tell you.
As everyone familiar with statistics knows, correlation does not show
causation. There is often a third variable, called a confounder, that
causes both variables under investigation.
In this case there are two confounders: population density and age. It
is well known that crime goes up as population density increases. It
is also well known that most crimes are committed by young people.
Declining crime rate over the last ten years is explained by aging of
the demographic bubble called baby boomers.
Generally, the 31 states with 'shall issue' laws are sparsely
populated ones on the West. I don't know whether their average age is
higher or lower.
Density is not as simple as (population / area). Arizona has the
highest crime rate and seemingly low density. But 40% of its
population live in two high-density cities. Texas, too, has a large
area but 90% of its population lives in the eastern third, mostly in
big cities.
An honest correlation between gun law and crime would do a regression
analysis on density and age, then discount their effect from each
state's crime rate. Statisticians at the Cato Institute surely know
that; they conveniently 'forgot' to do it right.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-01-07, 3:55 pm |
| In article <obctt0htiue8i5ifn0jjie33hectfdl6ek@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 7 Jan 2005 05:21:28 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>As everyone familiar with statistics knows, correlation does not show
>causation. There is often a third variable, called a confounder, that
>causes both variables under investigation.
That was not contested, Mr Wagner; what was pointed out was your
attempting to refute statistics from fifty states with a sampling of
three.
>
>In this case there are two confounders: population density and age. It
>is well known that crime goes up as population density increases. It
>is also well known that most crimes are committed by young people.
>Declining crime rate over the last ten years is explained by aging of
>the demographic bubble called baby boomers.
That was not contested, Mr Wagner; what was pointed out... see above.
[snip]
>An honest correlation between gun law and crime would do a regression
>analysis on density and age, then discount their effect from each
>state's crime rate. Statisticians at the Cato Institute surely know
>that; they conveniently 'forgot' to do it right.
You appear to have the konowledge you attribute to the Cato Institute, Mr
Wagner, and yet you have not demonstrated this honesty in your analysis.
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2005-01-07, 8:55 pm |
| On 7 Jan 2005 12:00:01 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <obctt0htiue8i5ifn0jjie33hectfdl6ek@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>You appear to have the knowledge you attribute to the Cato Institute, Mr
>Wagner, and yet you have not demonstrated this honesty in your analysis.
It's too much work for an off-topic discussion. I did an analysis 15
years ago that found guns do more damage than they prevent. The
fallacy in pro-gun arguments is assuming everyone who shoots another
in a crime of passion is 'a criminal'. It's a circular argument. Of
course they're criminals a postiori (unless they can afford Johnny
Cochran). I argued they wouldn't have become criminals if there hadn't
been guns at hand.
Note that the Cato Institute says crimes *of violence* are lower in
states with liberal gun laws. Why exclude property crime? The
deterrent effect of a gun in the house is principally against
burglary. I'll tell you why. Because in sparsely populated states, the
ones that have liberal gun laws, most crime is against property; in
densely populated states, it's proportionally more against people. If
guns didn't exist, the violent crime rate in rural states would still
be lower than urban states.
There is no way of directly measuring crimes prevented by guns. By
definition, they're unreported. The best we can do is imply them by
comparing crimes that were reported against an otherwise identical
baseline place with no guns. How about another country? There are many
to choose from, because very few countries have as many guns as the
US. In 2000, the homicide rate for all E.U. countries was 1.7 per
100,000; for the US it was 5.9.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-01-07, 8:55 pm |
| Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com comp.lang.cobol:105722
"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:a5ott09ovsh98isp34rbm3dqfa47ltemg8@
4ax.com...
> It's too much work for an off-topic discussion. I did an analysis 15
> years ago that found guns do more damage than they prevent. The
> fallacy in pro-gun arguments is assuming everyone who shoots another
> in a crime of passion is 'a criminal'. It's a circular argument. Of
> course they're criminals a postiori (unless they can afford Johnny
> Cochran). I argued they wouldn't have become criminals if there hadn't
> been guns at hand.
This isn't as irrelevant as it sounds: My brother-in-law grew up on
Trinidad where, I'm reasonably certain, private ownership of guns was
prohibited. He hung out in some pretty seedy dives in and around
Port-of-Spain in his youth, and he comment that "cutlass" (machete) fights
were about as common there as fist-fights were twenty years ago here in the
States. And just about everybody in the laboring classes had machetes;
they were a handy tool in both the rain forests and in agriculture.
Point being: Where there's a will, there's a way (and a weapon). *Guns*
don't kill people; it's *machetes* that kill people! ;-)
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-01-07, 8:55 pm |
| In article <a5ott09ovsh98isp34rbm3dqfa47ltemg8@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 7 Jan 2005 12:00:01 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>It's too much work for an off-topic discussion.
Mr Wagner, if you cannot make an honest analysis then perhaps you might
refrain from making one at all; it just might be that there is enough
dishonest analyses in the world without your adding to them.
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2005-01-09, 3:55 pm |
| On 7 Jan 2005 05:21:28 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <5ctrt0hp92ks9v0oe0p8bu3he2eqbqsqpt@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>No, Mr Wagner... let's look at the 31 states that have 'shall issue' laws
>and compare their numbers to the 29 states that don't, just as the
>assertion made. A sampling of three, as you gave, may not reflect the
>data found in a sampling of fifty, as one familiar with statistics might
>be able to tell you.
As everyone familiar with statistics knows, correlation does not show
causation. There is often a third variable, called a confounder, that
causes both variables under investigation.
In this case there are two confounders: population density and age. It
is well known that crime goes up as population density increases. It
is also well known that most crimes are committed by young people.
Declining crime rate over the last ten years is explained by aging of
the demographic bubble called baby boomers.
Generally, the 31 states with 'shall issue' laws are sparsely
populated ones on the West. I don't know whether their average age is
higher or lower.
Density is not as simple as (population / area). Arizona has the
highest crime rate and seemingly low density. But 40% of its
population live in two high-density cities. Texas, too, has a large
area but 90% of its population lives in the eastern third, mostly in
big cities.
An honest correlation between gun law and crime would do a regression
analysis on density and age, then discount their effect from each
state's crime rate. Statisticians at the Cato Institute surely know
that; they conveniently 'forgot' to do it right.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-01-09, 3:55 pm |
| In article <obctt0htiue8i5ifn0jjie33hectfdl6ek@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 7 Jan 2005 05:21:28 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>As everyone familiar with statistics knows, correlation does not show
>causation. There is often a third variable, called a confounder, that
>causes both variables under investigation.
That was not contested, Mr Wagner; what was pointed out was your
attempting to refute statistics from fifty states with a sampling of
three.
>
>In this case there are two confounders: population density and age. It
>is well known that crime goes up as population density increases. It
>is also well known that most crimes are committed by young people.
>Declining crime rate over the last ten years is explained by aging of
>the demographic bubble called baby boomers.
That was not contested, Mr Wagner; what was pointed out... see above.
[snip]
>An honest correlation between gun law and crime would do a regression
>analysis on density and age, then discount their effect from each
>state's crime rate. Statisticians at the Cato Institute surely know
>that; they conveniently 'forgot' to do it right.
You appear to have the konowledge you attribute to the Cato Institute, Mr
Wagner, and yet you have not demonstrated this honesty in your analysis.
DD
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-01-09, 3:55 pm |
|
"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:a5ott09ovsh98isp34rbm3dqfa47ltemg8@
4ax.com...
> It's too much work for an off-topic discussion. I did an analysis 15
> years ago that found guns do more damage than they prevent. The
> fallacy in pro-gun arguments is assuming everyone who shoots another
> in a crime of passion is 'a criminal'. It's a circular argument. Of
> course they're criminals a postiori (unless they can afford Johnny
> Cochran). I argued they wouldn't have become criminals if there hadn't
> been guns at hand.
This isn't as irrelevant as it sounds: My brother-in-law grew up on
Trinidad where, I'm reasonably certain, private ownership of guns was
prohibited. He hung out in some pretty seedy dives in and around
Port-of-Spain in his youth, and he comment that "cutlass" (machete) fights
were about as common there as fist-fights were twenty years ago here in the
States. And just about everybody in the laboring classes had machetes;
they were a handy tool in both the rain forests and in agriculture.
Point being: Where there's a will, there's a way (and a weapon). *Guns*
don't kill people; it's *machetes* that kill people! ;-)
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-01-09, 3:55 pm |
| In article <a5ott09ovsh98isp34rbm3dqfa47ltemg8@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 7 Jan 2005 12:00:01 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>It's too much work for an off-topic discussion.
Mr Wagner, if you cannot make an honest analysis then perhaps you might
refrain from making one at all; it just might be that there is enough
dishonest analyses in the world without your adding to them.
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2005-01-09, 3:55 pm |
| On 7 Jan 2005 12:00:01 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <obctt0htiue8i5ifn0jjie33hectfdl6ek@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>You appear to have the knowledge you attribute to the Cato Institute, Mr
>Wagner, and yet you have not demonstrated this honesty in your analysis.
It's too much work for an off-topic discussion. I did an analysis 15
years ago that found guns do more damage than they prevent. The
fallacy in pro-gun arguments is assuming everyone who shoots another
in a crime of passion is 'a criminal'. It's a circular argument. Of
course they're criminals a postiori (unless they can afford Johnny
Cochran). I argued they wouldn't have become criminals if there hadn't
been guns at hand.
Note that the Cato Institute says crimes *of violence* are lower in
states with liberal gun laws. Why exclude property crime? The
deterrent effect of a gun in the house is principally against
burglary. I'll tell you why. Because in sparsely populated states, the
ones that have liberal gun laws, most crime is against property; in
densely populated states, it's proportionally more against people. If
guns didn't exist, the violent crime rate in rural states would still
be lower than urban states.
There is no way of directly measuring crimes prevented by guns. By
definition, they're unreported. The best we can do is imply them by
comparing crimes that were reported against an otherwise identical
baseline place with no guns. How about another country? There are many
to choose from, because very few countries have as many guns as the
US. In 2000, the homicide rate for all E.U. countries was 1.7 per
100,000; for the US it was 5.9.
|
|
|
|
|