Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Law abiding citizen.....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tinkertoys
    "hot" burglaries are not mentioned in the NCVS, you are correct, Phoenix. It is a term used to describe burglaries while an occupant was in the house etc. It is simply much easier to say "hot" burglary than: burglaries while an occupant was in the house, business, etc.

    -tink
    I understood your usage of the term "hot burglary." However, I was not able to find any stats in the 1993 NCVS that delineate burglaries that occurred while an occupant was in the home. Nor could I find the 1,300,000 number you quoted. I found every other demographic and time-of-day breakdown in the stats, but not whether they occurred while someone was home. I'm hoping you can point me to that reference in the 1993 NCVS (page #.)
    Phoenix

    "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." ~Thomas Paine

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tinkertoys
      I actually talked to the Bureau: The NCVS has does NOT ask about the legality of anything, and conceivably, never will. Admitting to owning, carrying, or using a gun admits nothing. An auto accident is not automatically your fault if you were the driver, is it? And by the way, the interviewers are NOT sworn law enforcement officers. And on the sexual crimes, according to Psychology Today, the major portion of sexual crimes are reported.

      -tink

      You're correct they do not ask about the legality of the actions; that's not the point. This is NOT an anonymous survey. A person who identifies themselves as a Federal law enforcement officer and knows who you are and where you live is asking the questions. Don't you think that while talking with a Federal law enforcement official about criminal activity the average individual is likely to measure their own responses so as not to implicate themselves? Are you completely dismissing the quieting effect of that on the respondents?

      That would be akin to the Moral Majority doing a sex survey of military personnel and asking about frequency, positions, number of partners, etcetera. How many military people would volunteer that some of those incidents were homosexual acts? Do you think you would get any reliable stats about homosexuality in the military from that survey?

      You cannot be intellectually honest and deny the quieting effect on the respondents in either scenario.

      P.S. Do you think the numbers for rape from the NCVS are correct?
      Phoenix

      "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." ~Thomas Paine

      Comment


      • Starting off, I am Ryan, Tinkertoy's cousin, the statistician. For the past weeks he has been asking me this and that about gun control statistics. Here is my input:

        The Gary Kleck 2.5 million number is false, but I believe my cousin made an error when calculating how much this was by. I will attempt to rectify this and prove it later on.

        As briefly highlighted earlier, it is irresponsible to compare gun death statistics to others, e.g., car crashes. This is because of the difference in purpose, frequency of use, accessibility to different age demographics, and other similar factors.

        As for the number that tinkertoys cited, the 1.3 million "hot" burglaries, I believe that is true, but I will check. I am not as sure about the statistic about two thirds of victims of burglaries being awake, but again, I will check.

        Respectfully yours, Ryan Denton

        Comment


        • LOL Hey Tink....hold yer breath man...your going under


          Oh...and

          And why? The moment the gun is fired, it is being used in an offensive manner, even if reacting to another offense. And before you nitpick, this does not apply to waving it or any similar "self defense" use.
          This is just simply assinine....IMnotsoHO .......by that standard EVERY cop should be in jail.
          An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

          Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tinkertoys
            Starting off, I am Ryan, Tinkertoy's cousin, the statistician. For the past weeks he has been asking me this and that about gun control statistics. Here is my input:

            The Gary Kleck 2.5 million number is false, but I believe my cousin made an error when calculating how much this was by. I will attempt to rectify this and prove it later on.
            Sorry Ryan, but with all due respect, better minds than yours and mine have been grappling over Kleck
            Phoenix

            "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." ~Thomas Paine

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Phoenix]Sorry Ryan, but with all due respect, better minds than yours and mine have been grappling over Kleck
              Last edited by Tinkertoys; 12-05-2005, 02:16 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tinkertoys
                Knives do not kill over thirty thousand people a year.

                -tink
                After the overwhelming information I've presented you, that's you're only arguement? And it's an arguement you can't even back up.

                Knives kill people just as dead as guns. So clearly banning guns wasn't the solution to stopping violent crime. My arguement, and that of the City of Kennesaw, is that if more guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens, they are less likely to become victims of violent crimes.

                You still haven't posted where you got your info. You are wrong, you know you are wrong, and now your trying to save face by having someone pretending to be your cousin post for you. You are a sad, strange little man- and you have my pity.
                You have no right to not be offended.-Neal Boortz

                Comment


                • Ryan,

                  Thanks you for being intellectually honest. We both know that these numbers are not going to change anyone's mind on the issue of guns and whether people have a legitimate right to own and use them for self-defense. Maybe someday the experts will come up with an accurate survey that will answer the DGU question. Until then debating it on this forum amounts to little more than mental masturbation.

                  The debate over gun rights has been waged for over eighty years now. Those that believed the Second Amendment was an anachronism from our past that does not guarantee an individual right applied nearly unchallenged influence over academia, the courts, and the legislatures for the first fifty to sixty years of that debate. The result was a slow deterioration of gun rights.

                  Starting in the 1980s, thanks to some scholars who were willing to take up the cause, many of the early twentieth-century assumptions about the Second Amendment have been successfully challenged. More importantly, these scholars brought the debate to the public square and people started to pay attention to the fact that their gun rights were being attacked.

                  The pendulum is swinging back the other direction now in many ways. Over thirty States now have shall-issue laws that allow any law-abiding citizen to obtain a permit to carry a weapon concealed. Amazingly, all of the doomsday predictions about citizens carrying guns have not proven true. Florida did not turn into Dodge City, we do not have blood running in the streets from citizens legally carrying guns, and none of our shall-issue States have turned into a modern day equivalent of the Wild West.

                  For now at least the anti-gunners are on the defensive and I am satisfied with that. The average law-abiding citizen has finally awakened and decided to speak their minds at the ballot box. The politicians have been forced to listen or pack their bags. The deafening silence from the Democrats about gun control speaks volumes.

                  I wish you luck as a statistician; it appears that at least you have some intellectual honesty. However, as I wrote before, greater minds than yours and mine are currently engaged in the DGU debate. I for one am satisfied to read what the
                  Phoenix

                  "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." ~Thomas Paine

                  Comment


                  • Tinkertoys; your profile says you're a secretary; wouldn
                    Kelly

                    We are the thin blue line
                    between you
                    and all the money in the world.

                    And no you can't have any.

                    Comment


                    • After further examination, I do not feel as if it would irresponsible to combine the NCVS with Kleck's numbers if the objective at hand is to validate both by means of the other.

                      -Regards, Ryan

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NumbersGuy
                        After further examination, I do not feel as if it would irresponsible to combine the NCVS with Kleck's numbers if the objective at hand is to validate both by means of the other.

                        -Regards, Ryan

                        I agree; using one source to validate another is normal practice. However, that isn't where the irresponsible use of numbers occurred. The problem occurred when Tinkertoys combined numbers from multiple sources (some of undocumented origin) in a mathematical analysis.

                        Even if each of those numbers is accurate and came from a reliable source, the degree of fallibility injected by combining them that way in a mathematical analysis magnifies the potential for error to such a degree that it makes any conclusion useless. As a statistician, you would be laughed at if you tried that.

                        Additionally, using NCVS to validate anything is risky. NCVS is certainly not considered the "gold standard" for crime statistics within the scholarly community. Scholars tend to quote them when they agree with their suppositions and discredit them when they don't. Just like DGU stats, there is no completely reliable source for crime data. Where NCVS and UCR data agree (which is rare) you may be getting close to the truth.
                        Phoenix

                        "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." ~Thomas Paine

                        Comment


                        • <statistics off>
                          <common sense on>

                          Well...the real issue ....statistics aside for a moment....is that banning guns does not reduce violent crime, instead, it has been shown over and over to increase violent crimes. What banning guns does do is create more victims for the guys who do not care about the laws in the first place. If they can't get guns, (which they will always be able to do anyway), they will not suddenly reform to law abiding citizens...they will instead gravitate toward other weapons.

                          Remember the question?

                          Why, would a criminal by definition, care at all or otherwise be affected by banning guns from law abiding citizens?

                          The answer is always the same....a criminal by definition does not abide by the law, therefore ANY law restricting their illegal activity would go unnoticed in actual practice. There are certainly gray areas when we are talking about MMs, I would wager that every cop or civilian here has been charged with some MM. That does NOT make them criminals by nature or preference.

                          Only law abiding citizens will be affected by laws curtailing their previously legal activities. That, my friend, turns honest hardworking people into victims. Were you a wolf...would you rather eat sheep or porcupines?

                          So, the correct question is not if gun related deaths or crime moves up or down...but whether violent crime of any kind move up or down with the banning of guns.


                          <statistics on>
                          Last edited by zap; 12-06-2005, 11:34 AM.
                          An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

                          Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

                          Comment


                          • "So, the correct question is not if gun related deaths or crime moves up or down...but whether violent crime of any kind move up or down with the banning of guns."

                            And now for the statistics. Since you have excluded firearms from a possible answer, your answer is that violent crime not involving firearms moves neither up nor down, depending on who yo uask. A former colleague of mine made a model that showed this, if I can find it, I will post it. But do no count on it, as I have not talked to him in quite some time.

                            -Regards, Ryan

                            Comment


                            • Personally, I don't think gun control should be a public health issue before a public safety issue. However, that is only from my point of view.

                              -Regards, Ryan

                              Comment


                              • Ryan...first...thanks for getting your own nic....less confusing Further, it might well be cool to have a statistics guy on the board from time to time


                                And now for the statistics. Since you have excluded firearms from a possible answer, your answer is that violent crime not involving firearms moves neither up nor down, depending on who yo uask. A former colleague of mine made a model that showed this, if I can find it, I will post it. But do no count on it, as I have not talked to him in quite some time.
                                Maybe I wasn't clear. I think that violent crime should be the target issue regardless of whether the crime was committed with a gun, knife, baseball bat, hammer, car, or ball point pen.

                                We have models wherein guns were removed, and every time the violent crime rate went up drastically, but obviously gun related crime went down.

                                That really is a no brainer as it clearly indicates that the bad buys were using other weapons to commit violent crimes.

                                In the reverse, when guns are mandatory, and every bad guy knows it....violent crime goes down, but the inclusion of guns in crime also increase.


                                I don't know about you, but I would hate to be in a situation forced to protect my family...or yours....against someone with a gun or knife...and not have a gun myself.
                                Last edited by zap; 12-06-2005, 03:23 PM.
                                An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

                                Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3853 users online. 259 members and 3594 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X