what handguns do you own?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
[QUOTE=no_really,Oct 9 2006, 07:51 PM] you do realize that not being home renders the gun under your bed absolutely worthless, right? :/
Look, the idea that changes in gun ownership has caused a reduction in crime is ludicrous, and that's being generous.
Look, the idea that changes in gun ownership has caused a reduction in crime is ludicrous, and that's being generous.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
here's a great starting place for the misinformed
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
this is old now it sets at 1.2 million but proof that having the gun on the nightstand works wonders.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
this is old now it sets at 1.2 million but proof that having the gun on the nightstand works wonders.
At least 12 national and 3 state-wide surveys have asked probability samples of the general adult population about defensive gun use. The surveys differ in many important respects. The two most sophisticated national surveys are the National Self-Defense Survey done by Marc Gertz and myself in 1995 and a smaller scale survey done by the Police Foundation in 1996.
The National Self-Defense Survey was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It asked all respondents about both their own uses and those of other household members, inquired about all gun types, excluded uses against animals or connected with occupational duties, and limited recall periods to one and five years. Equally importantly, it established, with detailed questioning, whether persons claiming a defensive gun use had actually confronted an adversary (as distinct from, say, merely investigating a suspicious noise in the backyard), actually used their guns in some way, such as, at minimum, threatening their adversaries (as distinct from merely owning or carrying a gun for defensive reasons), and had done so in connection with what they regarded as a specific crime being committed against them.
The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.
The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
The National Self-Defense Survey was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It asked all respondents about both their own uses and those of other household members, inquired about all gun types, excluded uses against animals or connected with occupational duties, and limited recall periods to one and five years. Equally importantly, it established, with detailed questioning, whether persons claiming a defensive gun use had actually confronted an adversary (as distinct from, say, merely investigating a suspicious noise in the backyard), actually used their guns in some way, such as, at minimum, threatening their adversaries (as distinct from merely owning or carrying a gun for defensive reasons), and had done so in connection with what they regarded as a specific crime being committed against them.
The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.
The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Thanks for contributing but if you want to argue start a thread in the politics forum, I'll join you there.
Edited: I started a thread just for this discussion here.
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.ph...f=167&t=429279
Join me there and take the politics outside of off topic.
Oh yeah lets leave the name calling in between loading pages.
Edited: I started a thread just for this discussion here.
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.ph...f=167&t=429279
Join me there and take the politics outside of off topic.
Oh yeah lets leave the name calling in between loading pages.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
From: City
go start that thread you were talking about NOT turing this one into.
For the record, violent crime in MN increased since 2003, the year they passed a carry permit law allowing almost anybody to get a permit. So your claim that "in every single state that has allowed carry permits that the crime rate significantly dropped" is total BS. Now you know. You believe what you want to believe.
Here's the data: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mncrime.htm
For the record, violent crime in MN increased since 2003, the year they passed a carry permit law allowing almost anybody to get a permit. So your claim that "in every single state that has allowed carry permits that the crime rate significantly dropped" is total BS. Now you know. You believe what you want to believe.
Here's the data: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mncrime.htm
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Pretty much anyone could get a permit in Minnesota before that in the first place, it was a may issue state, you talking about when it turned into a shall issue state. The thing is that during that whole time "shall issue" was constantly struck down. It wasn't a "shall issue" state half of the time July 13, 2004-whenever the signed May 24, 2005 bill became official law. Police departments didn't issue it "shall issue" while it was being contested. So basically you have no data from Minnesota that reflects the shall issue status it officially had after or around mid 2005. So why did you bring this up, because you had no idea what the law really was in Minnesota. Great argument So all of this data is not relevant at all. But I'll play. It seems to have allowed CCW for a while, and the crime rate lowered that whole time. Minnesota has been a battleground state against the shall issue since 2003 - 2005 it's been on again off again. Then if you actually looked at your data it slightly affirms my position.
You can see several drops and spikes. None of these can really be attributed to the battle in the first place, see the fight below.
Do you know how to read data?
of course if you don't read the fine print....
here's the quote from your own data that you didn't read
* Forcible rape figures furnished by the state Uniform Crime Reporting Program administered by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety are not comparable to those for previous years.
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports
homicide down, property crime down, larceny/theft down, .....
remove forcible rape (you know the one that they warn isn't comparable and guess what
crime rate lowered 
Don't remove it and guess what crime rate is still lower than 2002 before CCW 2002 crime index 3531.5
2003 crime index 3376.2 DROPPED
HUM seems to have gone down
2004 crime index 3308.6 DROPPED
2005 3,488.4 how is that not lower than the 2002 crime index of 3531.5?
Ooh you want to point out violent crime, because it suits your purpose, not overall crime, ignoring the frustrated crime by handguns.
OK
2005 crime rate FACT it is LOWERED and it lower than the 2002 crime index before CCW. Also lower in at least SIX categories out of TEN from 2004 figures
Hum why did it go SORT OF go up in 2005? Well doesn't really matter since none of this data is relevant to the argument...
Read.. learn...
During the 2003 Session, there were several "concealed carry" bills introduced. See the legislature's Legislation and Bill Status web page for further information on these bills. In April of 2003, the House of Representatives amended the Department of Natural Resources technical bill, Senate File 842, with the "shall issue" language from House File 261. The Senate subsequently passed Senate File 842 as amended and the governor signed the bill into law (Laws of Minnesota 2003, chapter 28) on April 29, 2003.
On July 13, 2004, Ramsey County District judge, John Finley, ruled that the 2003 changes to the firearm carry law were unconstitutional. Minnesota's Constitution requires that bills deal with a single subject and the judge ruled that by amending the firearm carry language to a Department of Natural Resources bill, the law violated that requirement. Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch stated that he would appeal Finley's decision. See Ramsey County court decision, Unity v. State of MN (7/14/2004).
On January 13, 2005, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard arguments on the Ramsey County court decision. On April 12, 2005, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, thereby striking down the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003. See Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, Unity Church of St. Paul, et al., Respondents; Adath Jeshurun Congregation, et al., Respondents; City of Minneapolis, Respondent; People Serving People, Inc., et al., Respondents, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant. (A04-1302)(4/12/2005).
During the 2005 Session, several firearm carry bills were introduced to address the court decisions regarding the 2003 Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003. In May of 2005, Senate File 2259 was passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Governor Pawlenty signed Senate File 2259 into law (Laws of Minnesota 2005, chapter 83) on May 24, 2005.
On September 9, 2005, Hennepin County District Court judge, LaJune Thomas Lange, issued a temporary injunction that allows churches to post signs of their own wording and to completely ban firearms from all church property, including parking lots. This temporary injunction is the initial result of a lawsuit filed by two churches who argue that the firearm carry law interferes with their religious practices.
On July 13, 2004, Ramsey County District judge, John Finley, ruled that the 2003 changes to the firearm carry law were unconstitutional. Minnesota's Constitution requires that bills deal with a single subject and the judge ruled that by amending the firearm carry language to a Department of Natural Resources bill, the law violated that requirement. Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch stated that he would appeal Finley's decision. See Ramsey County court decision, Unity v. State of MN (7/14/2004).
On January 13, 2005, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard arguments on the Ramsey County court decision. On April 12, 2005, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, thereby striking down the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003. See Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, Unity Church of St. Paul, et al., Respondents; Adath Jeshurun Congregation, et al., Respondents; City of Minneapolis, Respondent; People Serving People, Inc., et al., Respondents, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant. (A04-1302)(4/12/2005).
During the 2005 Session, several firearm carry bills were introduced to address the court decisions regarding the 2003 Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003. In May of 2005, Senate File 2259 was passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Governor Pawlenty signed Senate File 2259 into law (Laws of Minnesota 2005, chapter 83) on May 24, 2005.
On September 9, 2005, Hennepin County District Court judge, LaJune Thomas Lange, issued a temporary injunction that allows churches to post signs of their own wording and to completely ban firearms from all church property, including parking lots. This temporary injunction is the initial result of a lawsuit filed by two churches who argue that the firearm carry law interferes with their religious practices.
What a worm hole you opened up. Maybe do a little more research.
Thanks for making my point
I'll do the exact math later
Now you know. You believe what you want to believe.
Try again.
Oh so you know violent crime did fluctuate about 3% in the past 7 years or so, yet still lower than the 80's and 90's meanwhile gun ownership almost doubled in the past ten year) noticed you avoided the whole there's no data to support that when I gave it to you.
Now you know. You believe what you want to believe.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
From: City
um, yeah. The law went into effect mid-2003. I compared violent crime numbers as well as all categories together from 2003 to 2005, ignoring "index," because it was unclear how that was calculated. If you want to cherry-pick numbers, fine. Looks like violent crimes jumped from 2001 to 2002. Since you contend that the frequency of violent crime is directly and only related to the number of permitted gun owners, please explain the rise from 2001 to 2002.
You can prove anything you want with statistics. That doesn't mean all statistics and all conclusions are equally valid. Changes in crime rate are the result of multiple combined factors, and any attempt to pin it on one single factor is being simplistic to a retarded degree.
You can prove anything you want with statistics. That doesn't mean all statistics and all conclusions are equally valid. Changes in crime rate are the result of multiple combined factors, and any attempt to pin it on one single factor is being simplistic to a retarded degree.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Originally Posted by no_really,Oct 10 2006, 10:31 AM
If you want to cherry-pick numbers, fine. Looks like violent crimes jumped from 2001 to 2002. Since you contend that the frequency of violent crime is directly and only related to the number of permitted gun owners, please explain the rise from 2001 to 2002.
You can prove anything you want with statistics. That doesn't mean all statistics and all conclusions are equally valid. Changes in crime rate are the result of multiple combined factors, and any attempt to pin it on one single factor is being simplistic to a retarded degree.
You can prove anything you want with statistics. That doesn't mean all statistics and all conclusions are equally valid. Changes in crime rate are the result of multiple combined factors, and any attempt to pin it on one single factor is being simplistic to a retarded degree.
Since you contend that the frequency of violent crime is directly and only related to the number of permitted gun owners, please explain the rise from 2001 to 2002.
If you are going to use a one year time frame for reference you obviously know nothing about stats. How about using 1990 - 2005! a far more significant time frame.
[QUOTE]um, yeah.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
From: City
"Pretty much anyone could get a permit in Minnesota before that in the first place"
"You are wrong! The law was NOT in effect from 2004 - 2005
IT WAS IN EFFECT FROM JULY 1,2003 - JULY 13,2004 ONLY"
I don't understand. If anyone could get a permit in MN for a long time, why has crime risen and fallen and risen again over time, rather than fall significantly every year since the ability to get a permit to carry a handgun went into effect how many years ago? Sounds to me like the data doesn't support your assertions at all, and that frustrates you. Clearly, if carry permits had ANY effect on crime, it would show a steady decrease every year as more and more people acquired permits. But the data clearly shows times of increased crime and times of decreased crime. It doesn't appear to me that there is any correlation at all between permit laws and crime rate. Which is the conclusion I think any sensible person would see, as well. I think only those who have an agenda, or are grasping desperately at anything that makes them feel safe would choose to see a correlation when there isn't any.
The world isn't that dangerous. Especially not the US. People who think they need to have a gun at hand at all times to protect themselves from "baddies" live in a sad fantasy, IMHO. And anyone who buys a gun with the sole intention of shooting someone can hardly call themselves "one of the good guys." A permit is not a dispensation.
For crying out loud, if you have insurance, you have no need to shoot people to stop them from taking your crap. Some "home-defense" proponets sound like kids afraid of the dark. "Oh no, the bogeyman is coming. Luckily, I have my gun, that'll stop him." Sounds like "Oh no, the bogeyman is coming. Luckily I have my blankey, that'll stop him."
"You are wrong! The law was NOT in effect from 2004 - 2005
IT WAS IN EFFECT FROM JULY 1,2003 - JULY 13,2004 ONLY"
I don't understand. If anyone could get a permit in MN for a long time, why has crime risen and fallen and risen again over time, rather than fall significantly every year since the ability to get a permit to carry a handgun went into effect how many years ago? Sounds to me like the data doesn't support your assertions at all, and that frustrates you. Clearly, if carry permits had ANY effect on crime, it would show a steady decrease every year as more and more people acquired permits. But the data clearly shows times of increased crime and times of decreased crime. It doesn't appear to me that there is any correlation at all between permit laws and crime rate. Which is the conclusion I think any sensible person would see, as well. I think only those who have an agenda, or are grasping desperately at anything that makes them feel safe would choose to see a correlation when there isn't any.
The world isn't that dangerous. Especially not the US. People who think they need to have a gun at hand at all times to protect themselves from "baddies" live in a sad fantasy, IMHO. And anyone who buys a gun with the sole intention of shooting someone can hardly call themselves "one of the good guys." A permit is not a dispensation.
For crying out loud, if you have insurance, you have no need to shoot people to stop them from taking your crap. Some "home-defense" proponets sound like kids afraid of the dark. "Oh no, the bogeyman is coming. Luckily, I have my gun, that'll stop him." Sounds like "Oh no, the bogeyman is coming. Luckily I have my blankey, that'll stop him."
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
You have no idea how to read data nor statistical significance do you because statistically on average every year since the 90's those crime rates did fall, don't get all huffy about the fact that you don't know how to read data.
Here's a pretty little picture for you to comprehend easier.
See how the big bad red line drops.
Just because your clueless doesn't mean you should go around spewing misinformation.
Here's another one
see how the big green area drops.
here's another one
see how all the lines drop
See i figure this way you can see how all the numbers drop since you obviously can't read the numbers.
Here's a pretty little picture for you to comprehend easier.
See how the big bad red line drops.
Just because your clueless doesn't mean you should go around spewing misinformation.
Here's another one
see how the big green area drops.
here's another one
see how all the lines drop
See i figure this way you can see how all the numbers drop since you obviously can't read the numbers.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
For crying out loud, if you have insurance, you have no need to shoot people to stop them from taking your crap.
People with handgun permits frustrate more active crime than police officers.
People with handgun permits are less likely to conduct an unjustified shooting (some call it accidental) than a police officer.
What are you going to do when a guy comes at you with a knife, bleed.