Another Gun Thread When home defence goes wrong.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by DesterWallaboo

One instance doesn't set precedence.

But it does clearly disprove the "that won't do anything to reduce anything" statement he made.

[DesterWallaboo]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

From your source:

That's gang-related 'homicides' as a whole.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by DesterWallaboo

That's gang-related 'homicides' as a whole.

Right, and 12% of all homicides are attributed to gangs. Now I know it doesn't differentiate different weapons used....

But, I'm still not seeing any source for your 74%....

[DesterWallaboo]

Originally Posted by zioxide

But it does clearly disprove the "that won't do anything to reduce anything" statement he made.

You can always find a single incidence to prove whatever you feel. People do it all the time.

My neighbor is a leading triple-certified forensic psychiatrist and homicide is a big part of what he deals with on an everyday level. You see him interviewed on the media on occasion. He's the guy that gets to clean up and sort through all the crap after-the-fact. We've had lengthy discussions on this matter. His name is Todd Thatcher, and he's at the University of Utah, in case you think I'm just doing standard web 'expertise' banter. You should give him a call. You'll be surprised to find that he not only disagrees with most of the anti-gun crowd, he also has the statistics to back it up.

Also..... let me ask you this. What percentage of crimes were high-capacity magazines a key factor?... and secondly... what percentage of the estimated 270-350 million guns in the USA are involved in criminal activity?

And, since it's obvious you feel making high-capacity magazines illegal... how are you going to go about either a) securing the billions of high-capacity magazines; or b) registering these magazines which, by the way, none are serialized. And finally.... what percentage of gun-owners are going to turn in their magazines vs stashing them away? Also.... you realize that the majority of semi-automatics ship with a 10+ round magazine by default from the manufacturer? With the exception of a handful of states who require 8 or less. Gun magazines run $40+ per mag typically... so you're essentially taxing gun owners by requiring them to purchase replacement magazines. How well do you think that's going to go over?

Reality is.... high-capacity magazines are not going to be banned... and neither are 'assault weapons'.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by DesterWallaboo

Also..... let me ask you this. What percentage of crimes were high-capacity magazines a key factor?

This is a good point.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by DesterWallaboo

That's gang-related 'homicides' as a whole.

What does that statement mean?

Again, from the very source you chose to provide ...

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS [National Youth Gang Survey] sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the United States (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl01.xls). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually.

Considering the above statement, how can you rationalize your previous claim that "74% of all gun homicides are gang-on-gang"?

Do you now realize your previous statement was incorrect?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by DesterWallaboo

That's gang-related 'homicides' as a whole.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

What does that statement mean?

I got home from work, re-read the previous post and now see what DesterWallaboo means by his statement, "That's gang-related 'homicides' as a whole." He's concerned that the number given, 12%, might be skewed by the fact we aren't looking at only firearm-related homicides.

Let's take a closer look at this and see if Wallaboo has an argument.

From the Institute of National Justice comes the following statistic ...

... by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (97 percent)

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm

From Wallaboo's source we get the numbers for Gang-Related Homicides, 2006–2010 ...

Gang-Related Homicides
2006: 2,058
2007: 1,975
2008: 1,659
2009: 2,083
2010: 2,020

Since those are overall homicide numbers—which Wallaboo seems to be quibbling about—let's do the math to get only gun-related homicides ...

Gang-Related / Firearm Homicides
2006: 2,058 × .97 = 1,996.26
2007: 1,975 × .97 = 1,915.75
2008: 1,659 × .97 = 1,609.23
2009: 2,083 × .97 = 2,020.51
2010: 2,020 × .97 = 1,959.4

Now the number of overall firearm homicides for the years 2006–2010 in the United States ...

Gun Homicides
2006: 12,791
2007: 12,632
2008: 12,179
2009: 11,493
2010: 11,078

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Then finally, the percentage of gang-related firearm homicides to firearm homicides ...

2006: 1,996.26 / 12,791 = 15.605%
2007: 1,915.75 / 12,632 = 15.168%
2008: 1,609.23 / 12,179 = 13.211%
2009: 2,020.51 / 11,493 = 17.585%
2010: 1,959.4 / 11,078 = 17.684%

Five year average — 15.85%

So indeed we find that 12% was ~4% off when accounting for only firearm homicides that were gang related.

This does however, still leave Wallaboo 58.15% off on his claim that gang-related firearm homicide accounted for 74% of firearm-related homicides.

Now that we've gotten that straightened out, I am curious whether Wallaboo—or anybody else laboring under similar misconceptions—has anything to say about these numbers.

I do look forward to hearing from them.

[eric/]

I guess those 12% don't matter.

And what constitutes gang violence anyway? How is it defined?

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by eric/

I guess those 12% don't matter.

And what constitutes gang violence anyway? How is it defined?

Why are you twisting what people are posting? Do you like to argue that much?

Where has anyone said that "those 12% don't matter"?

Wallaboo made a claim that 74% of all gun homicides were gang related, and the source he provided showed it was closer to 12%. He was called out on it, and has yet to comment on it.

It's the reason we ask for sources - so people don't come in here and make up ridiculous things.

And if you want questions answered regarding the data, why don't you click on the little linky and look for yourself?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Why are you twisting what people are posting? Do you like to argue that much?

Where has anyone said that "those 12% don't matter"?

Wallaboo made a claim that 74% of all gun homicides were gang related, and the source he provided showed it was closer to 12%. He was called out on it, and has yet to comment on it.

It's the reason we ask for sources - so people don't come in here and make up ridiculous things.

And if you want questions answered regarding the data, why don't you click on the little linky and look for yourself?

It's like in another gun thread where eric/ doubled the murder rate in the United Kingdom and brushed it off because he said he put a ~ in from of it.

If we can't even get the math right, how can we possibly handle the more difficult political questions behind the math?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Where has anyone said that "those 12% don't matter"?

That's the impression I got from that post. It seemed to me that there was an attempt to minimalize the amount of gang-related violence in order to prove a political talking point.

Of course it appears that the 74% claim was off the mark.

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Wallaboo made a claim that 74% of all gun homicides were gang related, and the source he provided showed it was closer to 12%. He was called out on it, and has yet to comment on it.

I see that.

Originally Posted by Moyank24

It's the reason we ask for sources - so people don't come in here and make up ridiculous things.

Oh that's why? Wow I didn't even know.

Originally Posted by Moyank24

And if you want questions answered regarding the data, why don't you click on the little linky and look for yourself?

I did, they don't specify.

----------

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It's like in another gun thread where eric/ doubled the murder rate in the United Kingdom and brushed it off because he said he put a ~ in from of it.

If we can't even get the math right, how can we possibly handle the more difficult political questions behind the math?

The murder rate wasn't doubled, and the rate didn't include N. Ireland. As I clearly stated.

But hey, I guess even saying that you're not being 100% accurate is lying too.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by eric/

That's the impression I got from that post. It seemed to me that there was an attempt to minimalize the amount of gang-related violence in order to prove a political talking point.

Of course that's the impression you got. Because instead of actually reading and comprehending posts, you try to pick out things to argue about.

It's getting old....

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Of course that's the impression you got. Because instead of actually reading and comprehending posts, you try to pick out things to argue about.

It's getting old....

In what way did I not comprehend the post?

Am I unable to understand what he typed because I think that there is an attempt to minimalize gang-related violence?

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by eric/

In what way did I not comprehend the post?

Am I unable to understand what he typed because I think that there is an attempt to minimalize gang-related violence?

I'm the one who first pointed out the 12% and I absolutely was not attempting to minimalize gang-related violence.

I was only attempting to show that he was making his claims up. Which he was. What he was doing was attempting to minimalize gun violence as a whole by pawning it off on gangs. So go bug him.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I'm the one who first pointed out the 12% and I absolutely was not attempting to minimalize gang-related violence.

I was only attempting to show that he was making his claims up. Which he was. What he was doing was attempting to minimalize gun violence as a whole by pawning it off on gangs. So go bug him.

Fine. I just got that impression. All you had to do was say, no, I think it's a big problem too, he was just incorrect in his assertion instead of going off the rails and trying to say that I can't comprehend things.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I'm the one who first pointed out the 12% and I absolutely was not attempting to minimalize gang-related violence.

I was only attempting to show that he was making his claims up. Which he was. What he was doing was attempting to minimalize gun violence as a whole by pawning it off on gangs. So go bug him.

Eric/ claims to be an engineer, yet displays a disturbing inability to let numbers define an problem. When presented with statistics, he injects emotion ... he injects motivation ... when all that was put before him was math.

That doesn't sound like the mind of an engineer to me.

Eric/ claims that by accurately determining the percentage of gang-related firearm homicides, I'm minimizing the problem. However, he says nothing about Wallaboo, who overstates the problem by over three and a half times.

Why isn't Wallaboo exaggerating the problem?

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

It's the reason we ask for sources - so people don't come in here and make up ridiculous things.

Come on! It's 2013! We can't let facts get in the way of our misguided agendas. You just need to repeat the false information enough times so that people start to believe it.

Unfortunately that is the way it goes now. Seems like most discussions divulge in to this crap now. Everyone ignores the facts and just bitches back and forth over semantics and nothing ever gets done.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by eric/

In what way did I not comprehend the post?

Am I unable to understand what he typed because I think that there is an attempt to minimalize gang-related violence?

Seriously dude? The only people who continually minimize gun violence are the pro-gun crowd. You make excuses for every irresponsible gun owner (see posts on guy who shot 5 times at a shoplifter as an example) and every accidental gun death that has been posted on MR since Newtown.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Seriously dude? The only people who continually minimize gun violence are the pro-gun crowd. You make excuses for every irresponsible gun owner (see posts on guy who shot 5 times at a shoplifter as an example) and every accidental gun death that has been posted on MR since Newtown.

Yup. These excuses happen all the time. And we see them trying to deflect blame off "responsible citizens" and on to "criminals" and "gangs". Case in point: trying to claim that gang-related violence makes up 74% of gun violence when it's actually 12%. I mean, ****, Bohner and Obama are closer together in solving this budget crisis than those numbers are.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Case in point: trying to claim that gang-related violence makes up 74% of gun violence when it's actually 12%.

15.85% (5 year average)

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

15.85% (5 year average)

Well, 12 and 15 are closer than Obama and Bohner, so I guess that's close enough?

Big difference between a 3% difference (which is probably around the margin of error anyways) and a 64% difference.

[freeny]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I'm not sure what you mean by, "[these] laws have no effect on me."

Could you please explain?



If over the counter cold medicine laws "only effect law abiding citizens" then I would expect two things ...

1. I would expect that only law abiding citizen have been arrested or prosecuted for breaking this law. I have a hard time believing that is true.

2. I would expect that the procurement of supplies necessary to cook meth are just as easy to obtain as purchasing a product in any store. Again, I have a hard time believing that is true.

True, everyone is a law abiding citizen... Until they're not...