FBI: Violent Drops To 1970s Level

Ducman69 said:
Its 110% accurate, as long as you replace the subjective term "liberal" with the objective term "Democratic party voter".

You can very easily see on superimposed maps that the crime rate in Democrat voter areas taken as a whole dwarfs the red areas.

You're correct and wrong. Yes, crime has been steadily going down, while CHL licenses have been steadily increasing since the 1970s. The first stand your ground/castle doctrine type of self-defense laws were put in place in 1978, and have been steadily expanded legal coverage since that time. The trend for the issuing of concealed handgun licenses started in 1976, and has steadily increased.

Conceled-Carry-population-coverage-and-violent-crime.jpg


Now, does that mean that CHLs and self-defense laws protecting law abiding citizens from criminals reduce crime? Nope. Is it a statistical fact that crime has been reduced as more law abiding citizens were licensed to be armed and given legal protection to defend themselves? Yup!

Could be entirely incidental, but with 100% certainty we can say that self-defense laws protecting citizens have followed reduce crime trends, and that areas with the highest crime rates also have the least self-defense legal protections and anti-gun legislation in place.

What do you mean people like me? Just because I'm black you're going to say "people like me"???
Click to expand...

You're exactly right, but don't confuse the libs with facts. It'll make their heads explode!
 
I think its hilarious that certain posters put down people of a certain political affiliation by way of suggesting they are not fond of facts .... and at the same time supporting the asinine belief that correlation implies causation.
 
Draax said:
I think its hilarious that certain posters put down people of a certain political affiliation by way of suggesting they are not fond of facts .... and at the same time supporting the asinine belief that correlation implies causation.
Click to expand...

You must admit though that there is quite a bit of correlation, yes?
 
Raffin said:
You must admit though that there is quite a bit of correlation, yes?
Click to expand...
There is a tremendous amount of "correlation" with certain posters and nonsense being posted, true; but in terms of the relationship between voting and crime, and guns carried for self defense and crime? not so much

not unless you want to try and clarify that ridiculous post trying to draw a link between the national average of carrying guns compared against the national average of street violence.

ducman claims he's a scientist but he just posted two wholly unrelated graphs superimposed on one another...unless you really believe there is some kind of legitimate relationship to be discussed about the rising street violence in Detroit, for example, and the rising defensive guns in Billings.

Then he follows it up by posting an electoral graph of one county (without the concurrent crime rates) and then incorrectly argues that it's the same anywhere else as evidence that voting patterns and violent crime have "something" to do with one another.

What that something is, from the data, is unclear. Whether it's even true that crime is higher in those districts voting democrat is unclear, whether that pattern holds across the country is unclear, and even his language is backwards (in both examples he described the effect he was trying produce as the cause and temporally before the cause so he's clearly confused on how to even speak about the data he's citing from the NRA).
 
Ducman69 said:
Its 110% accurate, as long as you replace the subjective term "liberal" with the objective term "Democratic party voter".

You can very easily see on superimposed maps that the crime rate in Democrat voter areas taken as a whole dwarfs the red areas.

You're correct and wrong. Yes, crime has been steadily going down, while CHL licenses have been steadily increasing since the 1970s. The first stand your ground/castle doctrine type of self-defense laws were put in place in 1978, and have been steadily expanded legal coverage since that time. The trend for the issuing of concealed handgun licenses started in 1976, and has steadily increased.

Conceled-Carry-population-coverage-and-violent-crime.jpg


Now, does that mean that CHLs and self-defense laws protecting law abiding citizens from criminals reduce crime? Nope. Is it a statistical fact that crime has been reduced as more law abiding citizens were licensed to be armed and given legal protection to defend themselves? Yup!

Could be entirely incidental, but with 100% certainty we can say that self-defense laws protecting citizens have followed reduce crime trends, and that areas with the highest crime rates also have the least self-defense legal protections and anti-gun legislation in place.

What do you mean people like me? Just because I'm black you're going to say "people like me"???
Click to expand...

Label your goddamn axes. Where are the numbers for CHLs and how is it scaled?

You need to also make your argument for causation, like in states where CHLs are extremely hard to get crime has not dropped as much as the rest of the country where they have increased greatly in numbers (Think NY, MA, CA, IL, etc).

Form your arguments better and get your facts presented clearly you'll be a more compelling writer. Just saying.
 
Raffin said:
You're exactly right, but don't confuse the libs with facts. It'll make their heads explode!
Click to expand...
I already remarked why it's ridiculous to superimpose a graph like that but just look at it critically and you can see even inside the graph it's nonsense.

It's difficult to argue that more guns on the street means things are safer when right in the middle of the peak gun increases (mid-2000's) you see the crime going back up.

How do you stare at a graph like that and walk away thinking it supports your point when it's right on the graph itself that the claim is backwards?
 
I don't think you can look at overall concealed carry numbers in relation to the statistics. I'm sure that the violent crime was weighted to certain areas. I would be interested to see if the concealed carry statistics were also weighted to those same areas that saw the greatest decline in violent crime rates.
 
amddragonpc said:
Seriously, they must have excluded Chicago because here, "it's business as usual".
Click to expand...

You got that right, and actually shootings are up. Less are dying, probably due to advances in medical care.

Great site for stats here: http://heyjackass.com/

2014 total shot so far: 1948 with more than a month and a half to go

2013 total: 1777 http://heyjackass.com/category/2013/


The sad thing is that Rahm and McCarthy are bragging that crime is down because homicides are down. I hate the politics, twisting, and omitting of facts.
 
Woof, correlation and causation, people. Crime is higher in urban areas, for a number of reasons. Urban areas also tend to overwhelmingly vote more Democratic.
 
mope54 said:
No, that's false.
Click to expand...

xIronCrossx said:
I would assume it has much more to do with economic situations. Where the economy sucks and people are poor is where you will generally see more crime.
Click to expand...

mope54 said:
Bingo.
Click to expand...

Where there is more liberal policies is where the economy tends to be worse, it is especially evident in areas that have higher populations.

Sparsely populated areas that really don't have the needed businesses nor customers to have a good economy are not going to really matter one way or the other how they lean politically since either way, the economy is going to tend to be poor.

Tax, tax, tax, and then tax some more as well as have a high percentage of people on welfare with no incentive to actually make any contribution to the economy and you end up with high crime rates.

Parents also need to take some blame for high crime rates. Just letting your kids run wild with no discipline and/or absent parents just ups the probability of high crime rates.

Factor into that corrupt politicians, law enforcement, etc. and you have a huge disaster.

It is common sense, which most people tend to have almost none of now days.

In southern border towns in Texas and Arizona where they are not allowed to actually enforce immigration laws (yes, I know this from personal experience), you are going to have higher than average crime rates as well no matter the political leaning of the area. And that crime will only keep going up as long as the laws are no enforced.
 
cyclone3d said:
Where there is more liberal policies is where the economy tends to be worse, it is especially evident in areas that have higher populations.
Click to expand...

That's incredibly false. The blue states, overwhelmingly, are more wealthy, outside of a few red states which lean heavily on resource extraction. Meanwhile, those in higher income brackets identify as D/R at nearly the exactly same rates, with independents now overtaking both:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012...ivides-democrats-republicans-and-independents
 
news flash, densely populated cities have higher crime rates than suburban/rural areas.
Conclusion: apartment dwellings and voting democrat cause crime! We solved it!
 
TwistedAegis said:
That's incredibly false. The blue states...
Click to expand...

Dividing state by blue and red doesn't make any sense, since the party differences in most states are only different by a narrow margin, and most of them change from election to election.
 
BladeVenom said:
Dividing state by blue and red doesn't make any sense, since the party differences in most states are only different by a narrow margin, and most of them change from election to election.
Click to expand...
so you're agreeing with him and stating that it's even more incredibly false or incredibly more false to make those kinds of claims based on party affiliation?
 
Another point missed by many of you is that violent crime victims generally know their attacker. That is, violent crimes happen between people that know each other such as between gangs.

Random violent crime is quite rare. Even though random violent crime stories are vigorously covered by the media because they make for better sensationalism.
 
mope54 said:
so you're agreeing with him and stating that it's even more incredibly false or incredibly more false to make those kinds of claims based on party affiliation?
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that party differences in most states are insignificant.
 
BladeVenom said:
All I'm saying is that party differences in most states are insignificant.
Click to expand...
One a state level, sure, as an entire state likely has a diverse demographic. However, when you look on a county level, where you can see where different groups of people live, the party line division is painfully clear.

Texas is definitely a red state, sure, but inner-city Houston is as blue as it gets. Heck, our mayor is a vocal lesbian fighting for multiculturalism, wealth redistribution, and gay rights with the latest push trying to ensure all bathrooms in public facilities are converted to unisex because it makes transexuals uncomfortable to have to choose and issued subpoenas to churches against sermons which portray homosexuality in a negative light to be classified as discriminatory hate speech (free speech overruled), which sure doesn't match Texas priorities as a whole. She's popular though and gets reelected as if you look at the maps the high crime inner city Houston area is very liberal, its just the suburbs (many of which count as different cities) and surrounding areas that are all conservative except for bordertowns which are again blue because of relaxed immigration/welfare policies of the left.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Yet people are still so scared that cops are arresting mom's for letting their 10-year olds walk a block to a park to play by themselves.
Click to expand...

When I was 4, I wandered off into the cornfield next door and got lost. My mom eventually started panicking and called the police (regular phone number, not 911). By the time the police finally showed up, I had gotten un-lost and was standing next to her.

After that, something similar would happen about once every 2 years. (I had a bicycle and an strong urge to explore)

By the time I was 10, whenever my mom would panic and call the police, they would just tell her "Don't worry, he will show up eventually. If he's not home in the morning, call us back"

The joys of living in a small town, surrounded by corn, where nothing much ever happens.
 
cyclone3d said:
And if you look a little bit more into it, it is pretty easy to tell that the most "liberal" places are also the most likely to have the crime rate increasing.
Click to expand...

Not sure it has anything to do with political leanings, but has more to do with where most jobs have been lost. You also have to consider the smaller the town the less likely many crimes get reported.
 
mope54 said:
There is a tremendous amount of "correlation" with certain posters and nonsense being posted, true; but in terms of the relationship between voting and crime, and guns carried for self defense and crime? not so much

not unless you want to try and clarify that ridiculous post trying to draw a link between the national average of carrying guns compared against the national average of street violence.

ducman claims he's a scientist but he just posted two wholly unrelated graphs superimposed on one another...unless you really believe there is some kind of legitimate relationship to be discussed about the rising street violence in Detroit, for example, and the rising defensive guns in Billings.

Then he follows it up by posting an electoral graph of one county (without the concurrent crime rates) and then incorrectly argues that it's the same anywhere else as evidence that voting patterns and violent crime have "something" to do with one another.

What that something is, from the data, is unclear. Whether it's even true that crime is higher in those districts voting democrat is unclear, whether that pattern holds across the country is unclear, and even his language is backwards (in both examples he described the effect he was trying produce as the cause and temporally before the cause so he's clearly confused on how to even speak about the data he's citing from the NRA).
Click to expand...

I would be more interested in comparing the economic conditions and culture of the urban areas in which the crime rates were/are higher to the economic conditions and culture of the suburban areas in question. The fact that the urban areas happen to vote for Democrat candidates more (essentially exclusively) I would imagine has more to do with the economic arguments that Democrat candidates typically make (i.e. increases in the social safety net, reduced punishment for non-violent crimes like drug possession) matching more closely with the cultural values of the area. I bet that the gun ownership rate as well as the concealed carry permit approval rate in the suburbs is also higher than in urban areas.

Basically, economic conditions and culture are bigger factors in a lot of areas from crime rates to voting preferences than people often give them credit for. The social sciences are all about studying this, even if the data is not always interpreted scientifically.
 
it's already been done...since the 20's in fact

If you want to read up about it you can read Thrasher's work to get a sense of where the research started.

the way some people are using "culture" is a coded way of talking about urban minorities. you'll see those same people use a lot of loaded terms in other threads to get a sense of how they'll misunderstand and misuse that concept. but subcultural theory came out of symbolic interactionism, which came out of the chicago school, the predecessor to my school's social ecologists (of which I'm one).

in fact, if you look up some of those terms you're going to come across some friends of mine (and myself). I'll be in SF next week talking about 50 years after Delinquency and Drift (written by Matza in the list of names you'll come across if you google any of the terms I've laid out in this post) at a professional conference.
 
mope54 said:
the way some people are using "culture" is a coded way of talking about urban minorities.
Click to expand...
If you're a bleeding heart liberal focused on covering your ass for "the feels" instead of accepting reality, yes I suppose you could take it that way.

Different groups in society do have different cultures, with general trends on speech, clothing, mannerisms, and yes propensity for violence. Those demographics are often almost entirely of a certain race, which is a fact, but recognizing that fact doesn't mean that someone is racist or attributes that cultural group with an entire race.

I suppose it is racist to look at the group of gentlemen below and try to pigeon hole them into a violent demographic just because they happen to live in a high crime area and dress, speak, and carry themselves like gangsters and have criminal records:
ms-13.jpg


On first glance though, they don't share a culture with this guy of the same race:
hispanic-business-man-600*304.jpg


There is nothing racist about saying that most terrorists are muslims, as long as you don't go a step further and say most muslims are terrorists. People need to put the race card away, stop being so easily offended, and recognize the facts and problems for what they are instead of being so afraid of being labeled a bigot or offending someone. That's my opinion anyway.
 
Ducman69 said:
...There is nothing racist about saying that most terrorists are muslims, as long as you don't go a step further and say most muslims are terrorists. People need to put the race card away, stop being so easily offended, and recognize the facts and problems for what they are instead of being so afraid of being labeled a bigot or offending someone. That's my opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

Precisely. I have long hair, often appear 'scruffy', live in a rural area and drive a beat-up pickup truck, therefore some people assume I am an ignorant hick. What they don't know is that I have a bachelor's degree in IT and work a job where I have to wear a button-down shirt and tie every day. I think stereotypes often exist for a reason (here's a great example of a correlation/causation dilemma), but that doesn't mean that they are accurate or applicable to 100% of the stereotyped demographic or even a majority of said demographic - maybe people just aren't taking the time to get to know people instead of spending their time trying to categorize everyone.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
Precisely. I have long hair, often appear 'scruffy', live in a rural area and drive a beat-up pickup truck, therefore some people assume I am an ignorant hick. What they don't know is that I have a bachelor's degree in IT and work a job where I have to wear a button-down shirt and tie every day. I think stereotypes often exist for a reason (here's a great example of a correlation/causation dilemma), but that doesn't mean that they are accurate or applicable to 100% of the stereotyped demographic or even a majority of said demographic - maybe people just aren't taking the time to get to know people instead of spending their time trying to categorize everyone.
Click to expand...
I hope you go back and re-read his paragraph.

You just agreed with someone who made a blanket statement about an entire race of people and called it "fact"
 
MrCaffeineX said:
Precisely. I have long hair, often appear 'scruffy', live in a rural area and drive a beat-up pickup truck, therefore some people assume I am an ignorant hick. What they don't know is that I have a bachelor's degree in IT and work a job where I have to wear a button-down shirt and tie every day. I think stereotypes often exist for a reason (here's a great example of a correlation/causation dilemma), but that doesn't mean that they are accurate or applicable to 100% of the stereotyped demographic or even a majority of said demographic - maybe people just aren't taking the time to get to know people instead of spending their time trying to categorize everyone.
Click to expand...
Why am I picturing Eugene right now? :D
Eugene411box.png


People have control over the image they project though. I could get a mohawk, spike it with blue wax, get a bunch of tattoos, get a leather jacket and skin tight jeans with holes in them, and spit on the sidewalk and grab my crotch a lot... that's my choice, but I have to accept responsibility for the image I project when I choose to do so.

And hell if I dress up in a dark blue shirt and slacks with a black belt and shoes and holstered gun driving around in a white Crown Vic with a crash bar on the front, I wouldn't be pissed off if somebody came up to me and assumed I was a cop, heh. You don't have time to get to know every single individual you meet, and life experience can fill in many gaps about people from how they talk to you, dress, walk, cut their hair, etc. You can always amend the first impression, but that doesn't mean that first impressions aren't a crucial and valuable tool in everyday life.
 
mope54 said:
I hope you go back and re-read his paragraph.

You just agreed with someone who made a blanket statement about an entire race of people and called it "fact"
Click to expand...
I think you need to take your own advice, because I said EXACTLY the opposite.
 
mope54 said:
the problem with that data is it's an average of all crime in the US

the reality is that parts of the US have become much safer while other parts of the US have become much, much more violent and dangerous than ever. Places like Detroit have a murder rate that is 10x the national rate.
Click to expand...


Old Detroit, that's what Robocop is for :D
 
Ducman69 said:
I think you need to take your own advice, because I said EXACTLY the opposite.
Click to expand...
ok :rolleyes:
Ducman69 said:
Different groups in society do have different cultures, with general trends on speech, clothing, mannerisms, and yes propensity for violence. Those demographics are often almost entirely of a certain race, which is a fact, but recognizing that fact doesn't mean that someone is racist or attributes that cultural group with an entire race.
Click to expand...
 
Explain to me which part of that is confusing? I even used the terrorist example:
Ducman69 said:
There is nothing racist about saying that most terrorists are muslims, as long as you don't go a step further and say most muslims are terrorists. People need to put the race card away, stop being so easily offended, and recognize the facts and problems for what they are instead of being so afraid of being labeled a bigot or offending someone. That's my opinion anyway.
Click to expand...
But thank you for making my point, that liberals LOVE to throw out the race card and call people bigots at the drop of a hat, instead of breathing into a paper bag a couple times, actually registering what someone says, instead of just putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "DAZ RACIST! YOU CIS WHITE MALE DEVIL!" :D
 
well, for starters your entire sentence structure is incorrect so that makes it confusing.

you literally wrote: violence comes from one certain race but recognizing that fact doesn't make you a racist or means that you attribute violence to the entire race (which is nonsensical--one because violence is among all races not one specific, and two because saying that violence is attributable to one specific race and that's a "fact" is, by definition, a racist statement)
 
mope54 said:
well, for starters your entire sentence structure is incorrect so that makes it confusing.

you literally wrote: violence comes from one certain race but recognizing that fact doesn't make you a racist or means that you attribute violence to the entire race (which is nonsensical--one because violence is among all races not one specific, and two because saying that violence is attributable to one specific race and that's a "fact" is, by definition, a racist statement)
Click to expand...
The word "literally", I don't think it means what you think it means. :D

What I literally wrote is posted in non-editable text above, and elaborated on completely. I wrote that different GROUPS (not races) have different CULTURES (not races), but these groups can be comprised primarily of a certain race. Then I expanded with the example that most terrorists ARE muslim, which is a fact, and its not racist, as long as you don't go too far and say most muslims are terrorist.

My two pictures didn't both load, but I also showed how one group, cholos, are violent thugs and almost all hispanic. That is a group that shares a certain culture. They don't share the same culture with another person of the same race, and I tried to post a picture of a smiling well dressed hispanic business man.

But that is the problem with liberals, they have a trigger finger when it comes to blasting "RACIST" through a megaphone, and are a big part of the problem in America.
 
no, the problem is you are misusing words.

If what you wrote above is your position, then you misused the term demographics.
 
(and you also changed from "entirely" to "primarily"...nice backpedal)
 
mope54 said:
(and you also changed from "entirely" to "primarily"...nice backpedal)
Click to expand...
Oh Jesus Christ, I replaced "almost entirely" with "primarily". You just can't apologize and admit when you're wrong, eh? Its ok, its cute. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top