Gun owners in WA have given up

[daverich4]

There's no point looking for homicide reductions in Mayberry, USA.

I dunno, maybe you should.

https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Mount-Airy-North-Carolina.html

 

[danez71]

He was twisting my arguments around....

I did no such thing.

......as to suggest that I was arguing that, for "reasons", gun control measures work in one city and don't work in another

You asked me why a state law would would work in one city/county and not another.

I accommodated you by simply pointing out a reason that YOU had already given in another post.


If you have an issue with the question and/or the answer, you shouldn't have posted both.

 

[redcon1]

I dunno, maybe you should.

https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Mount-Airy-North-Carolina.html

I could point out that there were zero murders in Airy, NC in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019 or I could just remind you that

• 68% of all US homicides occur in 5% of US counties and
• over half of US counties had zero murders (in 2014, the last year that the FBI released county wide data).
• More than half of US murders occurred in only 2 percent of the nation’s counties.
• On average, 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders from 1977 to 2000.

 

[redcon1]

I did no such thing.



You asked me why a state law would would work in one city/county and not another.

I accommodated you by simply pointing out a reason that YOU had already given in another post.


If you have an issue with the question and/or the answer, you shouldn't have posted both.

Yeah, you twisted my argument into some kind of logic pretzel to suggest that I was arguing something that I wasn't so you could sleep better at night secure in the knowledge that you won the internet fight even though you didn't. Gun control either works or it doesn't and in Chicago, where gun control is very strict and was even more strict in 2011 when that article was published, it clearly did not work. To imply that there is any reason other than the failure of the gun control laws is ludicrous. It didn't freaking work. period.

 

[wbm]

The State senate (Democrat held) passed ESB 5078 yesterday. It's a "high-capacity" magazine ban bill.

Back to the future.

 

[danez71]

Yeah, you twisted my argument into some kind of logic pretzel

You asked a direct question and I gave you your own answer. I didn't argue or counter anything you said in that.

If there is any logic pretzeling in that, that's on you.

 

[daverich4]

I could point out that there were zero murders in Airy, NC in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019 or I could just remind you that

• 68% of all US homicides occur in 5% of US counties and
• over half of US counties had zero murders (in 2014, the last year that the FBI released county wide data).
• More than half of US murders occurred in only 2 percent of the nation’s counties.
• On average, 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders from 1977 to 2000.

This thread is just chock a block full of people cherry picking data that suits their narrative. You fed me back the first category while ignoring the seven categories below it.

 

[The Glockodile]

This thread is just chock a block full of people cherry picking data that suits their narrative.

Sounds like Fox and CNN, nothing new

 

[Pew-Pew]

Wowzas!

 

[redcon1]

This thread is just chock a block full of people cherry picking data that suits their narrative. You fed me back the first category while ignoring the seven categories below it.

We're talking about homicides, not property crimes. What kind of point are you trying to make here?

 

[redcon1]

You asked a direct question and I gave you your own answer. I didn't argue or counter anything you said in that.

If there is any logic pretzeling in that, that's on you.

This is what you said. this is your argument:

But using examples of select individual counties to prove state data isn't evidence is sorely bad.

I have proven over and over again that state homicide data is not evidence of gun control's actual reduction in homicide by pointing out that in those places where homicide is actually a problem, homicide rates remain persistently high despite high levels of gun control.
You also stated:

Your post 133 is an example.

You seem to think that post 133 has some relevance to why gun control works or doesn't work or something. Maybe you need to just clarify what you're argument is there because it isn't clear what you're saying. Gun control works for some demographics but not others? Is that what you're implying? Because that's not what I'm arguing at all. IMO, Chicago simply illustrates that the high levels of gun control in Illinois have not reduced homicides as homicides have been rampant in that city for decades and have shown no evidence of diminishing. Yes, there's a racial component to their homicides but as I have stated repeatedly, that's irrelevant to this argument even though the racial composition of the American criminal underclass is certainly something that ought to be discussed and assessed and addressed (but rarely is). That being said, I don't think passing a high capacity magazine ban or an assault weapon ban or a pistol brace ban or 80% lower ban or bump stock ban really addresses that population though, I think that kind of legislation targets individuals and populations that are, typically, not a large component of state and national homicide statistics and this is very typical and probably has an awful lot to do with why homicide rates don't actually decrease in areas where homicide is a persistent problem despite a state's implementation of strict gun control. like Chicago, Baltimore, washington D.C. Oakland, Stockton, etc.

 

[danez71]

You seem to think that post 133 has some relevance to why gun control works or doesn't work or something. Maybe you need to just clarify what you're argument is there because it isn't clear what you're saying.

133 is your post.

I didn't argue anything there.

 

[redcon1]

133 is your post.

I didn't argue anything there.

You said it's an example. An example of what? I don't even know what you're arguing about at this point. I think I have made my points though and they're pretty spot on.

 

[JohnKSa]

My argument all throughout this fracas has been that strict gun control laws DO NOT correlate with safer cities and that statewide homicide statistics obscure the extent of this reality.

The first part of this is correct, but the part about statewide homicide stats obscuring things misses the point. You could just stop after 'cities' and it would be fine. The statistics don't obscure anything--it's the other factors involved that make it impossible to see any obvious pattern related to gun control. The same thing applies whether you look at unscaled or per capita statistics and whether you look at statistics from the state, county or city level.

To put a finer point on it, gun control has not reduced homicides and violent crime in the areas where homicide and violent crime is a problem and has, without a doubt, made the residents of those cities less safe, not more safe.

You want to focus on the truth. The truth is that you can't make that statement because you KNOW that there are other factors that affect the statistics more than gun control. That means that the effects of gun control (if there are actually any) on the statistics are HIDDEN by the other factors.

You're doing just what you accuse the gun controllers of doing. You're looking at the statistics and when they appear to be favorable to you, you tout them as being evidence that you are right, when they appear to be unfavorable to you, you attack them as being obscurative, wrong, etc. All that can be said, based on the statistics we have available is that if gun control is having any effect on crime, it's having such a small effect compared to the other factors that affect crime, that we can't identify, or even say for sure that there is any effect from gun control.

The question is, does anyone care?

Sure, people care. The problem is that most people care more about being right, about getting their way, about pushing their agenda than about what the truth actually is. Even when they say that the truth is their focus.

I have proven over and over again that state homicide data is not evidence of gun control's actual reduction in homicide by pointing out that in those places where homicide is actually a problem, homicide rates remain persistently high despite high levels of gun control.

If, by this, you mean that crime is higher in urban areas and stays higher in urban areas regardless of gun control, then what you are saying is that there are effects other than gun control that affect crime much more strongly than gun control does.

That is the point. That's why you can't use the statistics to prove gun control has an effect. That is why you can't use the statistics to prove that it has no effect. There are other factors driving the statistics and unless one can compensate for those other factors, all that can be said is that the statistics don't correlate with gun control policies. Some areas have high crime and gun control. Some have low crime and gun control. Some have no gun control and high crime. Some have no gun control and low crime. Whatever effect gun control is having (if it is having any at all) is clearly being masked/hidden/swamped by the effects of other factors.

 

[danez71]

You want to focus on the truth. The truth is that you can't make that statement because you KNOW that there are other factors that affect the statistics more than gun control. That means that the effects of gun control (if there are actually any) on the statistics are HIDDEN by the other factors.

Agreed.

1st he dismisses any other factors.
Then he acknowledges there are other factors but they don't matter.
Then actually gives example of other relevant factors.
Then can't apply it regionally.
Says other factors obscure when they don't if looked at and applied.

You're doing just what you accuse the gun controllers of doing. You're looking at the statistics and when they appear to be favorable to you, you tout them as being evidence that you are right, when they appear to be unfavorable to you, you attack them as being obscurative, wrong, etc.

Yep.

You said it's an example. An example of what?

It's your example of other factors. You gave the example and said what it was. Now you don't know? Read your words.

I don't even know what you're arguing about at this point.

For about the 3rd time, I'm not arguing it.

I think I have made my points though and they're pretty spot on

Still trying after 9 pages. Valiant effort, though.

 

[redcon1]

It's your example of other factors. You gave the example and said what it was. Now you don't know? Read your words.

You still aren't making an argument. use your words and state clearly what you're arguing about.

For about the 3rd time, I'm not arguing it.

It seems like you're arguing something. It just isn't at all clear what you're arguing. I think you're just arguing.

Still trying after 9 pages. Valiant effort, though.

OK. You have a problem with something I've said. What is it that I have said that you find fault with? What specifically are you arguing that I have said that is wrong? I have made my arguments perfectly clear. You're just talking in circles.

 

[daverich4]

We're talking about homicides, not property crimes. What kind of point are you trying to make here?

That Mayberry isn’t the crime free haven you keep making it out to be. And I too am not talking about property crimes.

 

[redcon1]

t's the other factors involved that make it impossible to see any obvious pattern related to gun control.

Not really. The pattern of high homicide rate cities in high gun control states is pretty obvious. California says its gun control policies reduce homicides. The homicide rates of many California cities says otherwise. There are no relevant "other factors" even if there are correlations. The prescription either cures the problem or it doesn't. It clearly hasn't. a strong argument can be made that it has made these communities less afe and has contributed to the homicide problem rather than mitigated it.

You're doing just what you accuse the gun controllers of doing. You're looking at the statistics and when they appear to be favorable to you, you tout them as being evidence that you are right, when they appear to be unfavorable to you, you attack them as being obscurative, wrong, etc. All that can be said, based on the statistics we have available is that if gun control is having any effect on crime, it's having such a small effect compared to the other factors that affect crime, that we can't identify, or even say for sure that there is any effect from gun control.

I do not care about the other factors that affect homicide rates. they are a distraction because gun control was sold as the cure for the homicide problem. It is clearly snake oil. I'm arguing more than "gun control is having a small effect".

If, by this, you mean that crime is higher in urban areas and stays higher in urban areas regardless of gun control, then what you are saying is that there are effects other than gun control that affect crime much more strongly than gun control does.

Gun control, if effective, would do what it was intended to do (allegedly intended to do) regardless of any other "effects" or "factors". A blood pressure pill, if effective, should not fail to lower blood pressure because a person also has diabetes. If that is the case, a different pill should be prescribed. And if it is argued that doubling the dose is necessary, we need only look at Mexico where the dose is as high as can be and the homicide rate is among the highest in the world and almost 6x higher than our own national murder rate. Despite it being nearly impossible for civilians to own firearms, Mexico has 19 cities over 300,000 population with homicide rates among the top 50 highest homicide rates in the world. America , with far less gun control, has only 4 such cities in the top/worst 50. So more gun control clearly isn't a prescription for less murder. It's a prescription for more murder. A different prescription is needed.

 

[danez71]

You still aren't making an argument. use your words and state clearly what you're arguing about.

4th time... I'm not arguing. I simply pointed to your post to answer your question, per your request. I was being accommodating; not arguing.

It seems like you're arguing something. It just isn't at all clear what you're arguing. I think you're just arguing.

5th time... im not arguing. It's seems that after 5 times of me saying that and you're still poking at it, you're trying to get an argument going.

I have made my arguments perfectly clear. You're just talking in circles.

See... you're arguing, not me. 6th time.

I used your "perfectly clear" post to answer a question of yours.

If that's considered arguing and talking in circles, that's on you. Your question, your answer/example.

 

[redcon1]

That Mayberry isn’t the crime free haven you keep making it out to be. And I too am not talking about property crimes.

Mayberry is relatively crime free. Homicide is not a persistent problem in Mayberry. You said I was ignoring the other 7 categories. Those categories included Burglary, Larceny and Auto Theft. those are property crimes and in fact, one of the categories you said I was ignoring was actually a header called "property crimes" so you were talking about property crimes.

 

[redcon1]

4th time... I'm not arguing. I simply pointed to your post to answer your question, per your request. I was being accommodating; not arguing.



5th time... im not arguing. It's seems that after 5 times of me saying that and you're still poking at it, you're trying to get an argument going.



See... you're arguing, not me. 6th time.

I used your "perfectly clear" post to answer a question of yours.

If that's considered arguing and talking in circles, that's on you. Your question, your answer/example.

OK, well, you and I are done now regardless. So bye.

 

[JFrank]

No, they don't care about the truth in places where they have a monopoly on power and therefore don't have to debate anyone to get their way. But here in Ohio, I'm happy to point out to anyone that cares (or doesn't) that despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the country, California still has more gun murders than any other state. One might expect that given their population but one might also expect that they'd at least be ranked #2 (if not lower) given all their onerous gun laws that were passed to reduce gun crime... allegedly. But they're not, they're #1.




View attachment 1058759

Texas I was thinking has less regulations yet holds second place for murders. Interesting

 

[wbm]

Oh yeah a Washington state type law in Texas would get them longhorns civilized.

 

[redcon1]

Texas I was thinking has less regulations yet holds second place for murders. Interesting

So because Texas cities also have homicide problems, California's strict gun control laws have been effective at reducing homicides in their cities even though California cities also have homicide problems? Is that what you're saying?

 

[JFrank]

So because Texas cities also have homicide problems, California's strict gun control laws have been effective at reducing homicides in their cities even though California cities also have homicide problems? Is that what you're saying?

Not saying anything except I thought it was interesting.