Crime and the facts

[dstegjas]

Written by Rich Duprey:

Despite its popularity and politicians' fixation on it, the rifle is used in fewer crimes than other more common household items, like knives or hammers. In fact, hands, fists, and feet are used in twice as many murders as rifles. Overall, violent crimes with guns have been on the decline for years, and the murder rate by guns is at its lowest point since at least 1981, according to FactCheck.org. And all of that is occurring as gun ownership has increased.

If the statistics actually show that gun related deaths have been going down for the last 35 years while gun ownership has increased. Just how can people justify their actions of continually ignoring these facts and infringe upon our rights to own guns ?
 
Am I missing something or don't facts matter anymore.
 
Jim

[gypsyman]

Jim, facts don't matter to the liberal agenda! gypsyman

[dukkillr]

Interesting topic.  I caught this book a few years ago:

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

It's just one chapter in a book that is basically about the stats behind the world in general.  Still, it's a fascinating juxtaposition to find "conservatives" in.  They hate criminals (appropriately, imho), would prefer the claim that their positions are supported by facts, and yet they still badly want to make their religious beliefs binding on everyone.

Anyway, not to make an abortion debate...

[blind ear]

GOVERNMENTS are the greatest threat to human life of all of the things invented by man. Most often governments accomplish their killing by disarming the citizens first. Governments will kill their own citizens as readily as those identified as a foreign enemy if they deem it necessary. ear

[dstegjas]

Gypsyman,
I could very easily be over thinking this and it could be just that easy.
 
dukkillr,
Very interesting read. I have to admit, I had to read it twice to get a good grasp of what they were actually saying. Or more so the fact that someone actually thought of that and said it out loud.
 
blind ear,
Governments have been disarming their citizens for their own corrupt reasons for years. Unfortunately history always seems to repeat itself no matter what mankind does to stop it.
 
---------------------------------------------------------
 
I look at this as people will believe in their view points no matter what the facts are. What I mean by that is that they will find any slight variation, deviation or bump in the road (El Nino) to justify what they believe to be true no matter what the fact are. History is also littered with people ignoring the facts and blindly following the bread crumbs laid before them. Is it because of emotions or maybe just out of trust that they do this, I don't know. Fortunately I prefer information that can be verified and duplicated before I trust it and believe it.
 
Jim

[mechanic]

There are motives to disarmament, none of which have to do with crime.  In the same way, the new healthcare law has nothing to do with healthcare. 

Our government has become better at propaganda than the Soviets, but the goals are similar.

Ben

[Casull]

Still, it's a fascinating juxtaposition to find "conservatives" in.  They hate criminals (appropriately, imho), would prefer the claim that their positions are supported by facts, and yet they still badly want to make their religious beliefs binding on everyone.

 
 
 
 
Or, perhaps they just don't like the idea of handing out capital punishment before the crime is committed.   BTW, I don't believe one has to even be religious to come to the conclusion that killing an unborn child is not a good thing.

[Tommyt]

Jim, facts don't matter to the liberal agenda! gypsyman

THAT'S a FACT








Pun intended

[dukkillr]

Still, it's a fascinating juxtaposition to find "conservatives" in.  They hate criminals (appropriately, imho), would prefer the claim that their positions are supported by facts, and yet they still badly want to make their religious beliefs binding on everyone.

 
 
 
 
Or, perhaps they just don't like the idea of handing out capital punishment before the crime is committed.   BTW, I don't believe one has to even be religious to come to the conclusion that killing an unborn child is not a good thing.

Help me out.  Do you think you've found my thesis, and answered it?  And if the answer is yes, tell me what you think that thesis is. 

HINT:  I don't disagree with anything you said.  Now read the last half of my last sentence and apply it.

[mirage1988]

Dukk, as an attorney you know better than anyone how stats can be twisted to get any result you want to achieve, check this one out, it makes as much sense as your example 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/09/warm_weather_homicide_rates_when_ice_cream_sales_rise_homicides_rise_coincidence.html

Interesting topic.  I caught this book a few years ago:

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

It's just one chapter in a book that is basically about the stats behind the world in general.  Still, it's a fascinating juxtaposition to find "conservatives" in.  They hate criminals (appropriately, imho), would prefer the claim that their positions are supported by facts, and yet they still badly want to make their religious beliefs binding on everyone.

Anyway, not to make an abortion debate...

[dukkillr]

Dukk, as an attorney you know better than anyone how stats can be twisted to get any result you want to achieve, check this one out, it makes as much sense as your example 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/09/warm_weather_homicide_rates_when_ice_cream_sales_rise_homicides_rise_coincidence.html

Interesting topic.  I caught this book a few years ago:

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

It's just one chapter in a book that is basically about the stats behind the world in general.  Still, it's a fascinating juxtaposition to find "conservatives" in.  They hate criminals (appropriately, imho), would prefer the claim that their positions are supported by facts, and yet they still badly want to make their religious beliefs binding on everyone.

Anyway, not to make an abortion debate...

Right.  You've pointed out that correlation is not causation.  In your example the test would be, do murder rates adjust during periods of cold weather ice cream sales?  What about warm days when there is no ice cream?  Isolating a single factor is often what statistical analysis is all about.

In fact you're doing exactly what the author in my link was responding to.  The most common criticism of the original math was that it didn't account for the transformative effect of the crack epidemic.  It is an argument generally made by those trying to work backwards, meaning they don't like the results, so they try and find a reason it's wrong.  Anyway, it's got volumes of data available for you to study on your own on both sides.

Let me ask you this, did you read the actual piece that I was referencing?  Not the link, but the article that started it all?

[Casull]

HINT:  I don't disagree with anything you said.  Now read the last half of my last sentence and apply it.

 
This was your last sentence. 
 

Anyway, not to make an abortion debate...

 
So, I'm not sure what you are saying.  Unless it is that your last statement somehow negates everything that preceded it.
 
 
 

Help me out.  Do you think you've found my thesis, and answered it?  And if the answer is yes, tell me what you think that thesis is.

 
 
It appeared that you were alluding to a conflict between "Conservatives" "hating criminals" while being pro-life.  Or, perhaps you were just being a bit too crafty for me.

[dukkillr]

Huh. 

So I said, "Now read the last half of my last sentence and apply it."  in reply number 8, after quoting you and I.  I assumed it would be clear that it was in reference to the post quoted, but perhaps it was not.  Sorry.

Here:

They hate criminals (appropriately, imho), would prefer the claim that their positions are supported by facts, and yet they still badly want to make their religious beliefs binding on everyone.

And so the relevance becomes more obvious, I would hope.

Now, I'm happy to move back towards the crime and statistics topic.  There are countless other abortion topics.  The statistics of crime and abortion continues to be an interesting topic to me.  Care to opine?