New Yorkers... Give up your guns.

[hikenbike]

You guys and girls can cry and whine if you'd like but you're cluttering up the thread for the rest of us that aren't 4 years old.









Found this article interesting. I've never been to NYC and have no frame of reference except what you read and see on tv or news and internet clips. Is the NY Daily News a reputable newspaper?

That paper has its share of nonsense and garbage like any other, but those stats are likely very accurate.

 

[bofa]

You guys and girls can cry and whine if you'd like but you're cluttering up the thread for the rest of us that aren't 4 years old.









Found this article interesting. I've never been to NYC and have no frame of reference except what you read and see on tv or news and internet clips. Is the NY Daily News a reputable newspaper?

Stats like this suck. They don't account for demographics. They somewhat depict a propensity for crime based on race, but even that isn't really a fair determination, because race alone doesn't lead to violence.

 

[hikenbike]

Stats like this suck. They don't account for demographics. They somewhat depict a propensity for crime based on race, but even that isn't really a fair determination, because race alone doesn't lead to violence.

Alone? No. Predominantly? Yes.

 

[RunninInGA]

Stats like this suck. They don't account for demographics. They somewhat depict a propensity for crime based on race, but even that isn't really a fair determination, because race alone doesn't lead to violence.

It's true - stats can be made to tell any story you'd like.

There is this though:

Blacks compose 25.5% of the city’s residents, according to the 2010 census. Non-Hispanic whites make up 33.3%, while Hispanics and Latinos make up 28.6% and Asians 12.7%.

The only crimes that saw more whites victimized were larcenies, both grand and petty, which include pickpocketing, credit card fraud and theft of more than $1,000 in property, according to the report. Yet about 50% of the people arrested for grand larceny and 45.8% of those charged with petty larceny were black, the report shows.

 

[bofa]

Alone? No. Predominantly? Yes.

I'm surprised that you are so willing to lump people together by race, based on your position on other topics. Interesting.

It's true - stats can be made to tell any story you'd like.

There is this though:

Yeah but I believe a lot of that has to do with the environment, culture, and economic prosperity. I have black and Hispanic friends that are no more willing to commit a crime than the Pope himself.

 

[hikenbike]

I'm surprised that you are so willing to lump people together by race, based on your position on other topics. Interesting.



Yeah but I believe a lot of that has to do with the environment, culture, and economic prosperity. I have black and Hispanic friends that are no more willing to commit a crime than the Pope himself.

They do the "lumping" all by themselves. Don't need me. That paper gave you stats. Believe them and what they tell you.

And what "positions" are you referring to?

 

[bofa]

They do the "lumping" all by themselves. Don't need me. That paper gave you stats. Believe them and what they tell you.

And what "positions" are you referring to?

Your posts led me to believe you were more liberal, but maybe I misread.

In any case, I don't agree that race is an influential factor. There are plenty of productive members of our society of a variety of races. That alone should debunk that race is a major factor in proclivity for violence and crime. It's moreso culture and environment than anything, in my humble opinion.

 

[zopperman]

It's true - stats can be made to tell any story you'd like.

There is this though:

That's like what I said way early on in this thread - you read the intro to my thesis you know how I feel about stats lol.

Crime data (gun and rape data specifically)just sucks as a whole. I wish I could post excel files up here to show you what some things are like.

 

[hikenbike]

Your posts led me to believe you were more liberal, but maybe I misread.

In any case, I don't agree that race is an influential factor. There are plenty of productive members of our society of a variety of races. That alone should debunk that race is a major factor in proclivity for violence and crime. It's moreso culture and environment than anything, in my humble opinion.

I agree that it is certainly more a factor of being a product of an environment. It is not from the physical being of any particular race. Behaviors are learned, not inherited - at least not on a racial level anyway.

I'm believed liberal because although I am all for peoples rights to own their guns, I DO believe in thorough AND regular background checks. There's no convincing me otherwise.

 

[SV_Dude]

I DO believe in thorough AND regular background checks. There's no convincing me otherwise.

I can definitely agree with that! If we can make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns then I am more than willing to do background checks.

 

[JBecker]

Crime data (gun and rape data specifically)just sucks as a whole. I wish I could post excel files up here to show you what some things are like.

Again, I'm curious why you think this? The FBI keeps a very accurate record of violent crime in this country. Violent crime, on the whole, is and has been on a steady decline for the past 25 years.

Where some feel the data gets fudged is when a group with an agenda to push gets a hold of data and selectively releases numbers to show what they want.

For example, a group can say mass shootings are up 6% for a particular year over the previous, but when you look at the long term picture, the data shows it's on a steady decline and that increase is only representative of that one particular year, and in scientific terms, is not representative of an upwards trend.

Many groups are responsible for this number fudging on both sides of the debate. That is why it is important to go to the main source of information. For instance with regard to violent crime, you go to the FBI website, and not mayors against illegal guns. For causes of death nationwide you should look at the CDC. Traffic accidents, the NHTSA. And so on and so forth.

The numbers are all there, you just need to look at who is supplying those numbers and what their end game is.

 

[JBecker]

I can definitely agree with that! If we can make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns then I am more than willing to do background checks.

I'd be willing to compromise on universal background checks if the following was met.

Repeal the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act thus allowing post 86 machine guns to be added to the NFA registry.

Remove Short barreled rifles, shotguns and suppressors from the NFA. Long guns by definition aren't concealable, so arguing a 14.5" rifle is illegal while a 16" is not is ridiculous. Suppressors are a no brainer. They are a safety device first and foremost. They are designed to reduce the report of a firearm to a lower level, in many cases making them hearing safe.

Do away with the importation ban on semiautomatic long guns.

Nationwide reciprocity of concealed handgun permits. My VA drivers license is good in 50 states, why shouldn't my carry permit be?

If we could get all of this handled, I would be willing to submit to a background check for all purchases. Even ones between close friends and family where I know the person is good to go. Anything less is a further erosion of our rights.

 

[hikenbike]

I'd be willing to compromise on universal background checks if the following was met.

Repeal the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act thus allowing post 86 machine guns to be added to the NFA registry.

Remove Short barreled rifles, shotguns and suppressors from the NFA. Long guns by definition aren't concealable, so arguing a 14.5" rifle is illegal while a 16" is not is ridiculous. Suppressors are a no brainer. They are a safety device first and foremost. They are designed to reduce the report of a firearm to a lower level, in many cases making them hearing safe.

Do away with the importation ban on semiautomatic long guns.

Nationwide reciprocity of concealed handgun permits. My VA drivers license is good in 50 states, why shouldn't my carry permit be?

If we could get all of this handled, I would be willing to submit to a background check for all purchases. Even ones between close friends and family where I know the person is good to go. Anything less is a further erosion of our rights.

I'd rather see further erosion of your rights. But maybe that's just me.

 

[RunninInGA]

Nationwide reciprocity of concealed handgun permits. My VA drivers license is good in 50 states, why shouldn't my carry permit be?

This is a states issue is it not? At least it is with trades licenses such as real estate, law, CPA, etc.

 

[JBecker]

I'd rather see further erosion of your rights. But maybe that's just me.

You realize these are all of our rights, correct?

 

[zopperman]

Again, I'm curious why you think this? The FBI keeps a very accurate record of violent crime in this country. Violent crime, on the whole, is and has been on a steady decline for the past 25 years.

Where some feel the data gets fudged is when a group with an agenda to push gets a hold of data and selectively releases numbers to show what they want.

For example, a group can say mass shootings are up 6% for a particular year over the previous, but when you look at the long term picture, the data shows it's on a steady decline and that increase is only representative of that one particular year, and in scientific terms, is not representative of an upwards trend.

Many groups are responsible for this number fudging on both sides of the debate. That is why it is important to go to the main source of information. For instance with regard to violent crime, you go to the FBI website, and not mayors against illegal guns. For causes of death nationwide you should look at the CDC. Traffic accidents, the NHTSA. And so on and so forth.

The numbers are all there, you just need to look at who is supplying those numbers and what their end game is.

Yes and no. I totally agree with what you said about keeping an eye on the sources etc, but also how the data is obtained (see the NYT article I posted before) is important too.

Not everything comes from FBI and UCR data. I guess on the national scale the data is technically correct and the interpretations are flawed. I generally think of that data as somewhat less useful and overly aggregated (which is my biggest qualm with it). The stuff I'm writing my thesis on happens to be good data from PPD. Very well organized, coded properly and is administrative and likely contains few errors and I don't have to do any imputation or deletion.

I worked with a set of data from courts in another city for my research methods class that was really dirty, but researchers still used it to draw conclusions that I found to be invalid predicated on the lack of comprehensive data

I guess what I am saying is that I don't trust the studies and facts and figures unless I cam see the source from which they came and draw my own inferences. Sorry that was kinda verbose, you have me in paper writing mode here.

Seem fair to say?

 

[JBecker]

This is a states issue is it not? At least it is with trades licenses such as real estate, law, CPA, etc.

It would be a states right issue if it weren't specifically stated in the Bill Of Rights. These rights extend to all citizens, in all states of the union. Specifically, see the tenth amendment in regard to the others.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[bofa]

I agree that it is certainly more a factor of being a product of an environment. It is not from the physical being of any particular race. Behaviors are learned, not inherited - at least not on a racial level anyway.

I'm believed liberal because although I am all for peoples rights to own their guns, I DO believe in thorough AND regular background checks. There's no convincing me otherwise.

I agree with you here. I believe in background checks and I wish there was a competency exam.

I'd be willing to compromise on universal background checks if the following was met.

Repeal the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act thus allowing post 86 machine guns to be added to the NFA registry.

Remove Short barreled rifles, shotguns and suppressors from the NFA. Long guns by definition aren't concealable, so arguing a 14.5" rifle is illegal while a 16" is not is ridiculous. Suppressors are a no brainer. They are a safety device first and foremost. They are designed to reduce the report of a firearm to a lower level, in many cases making them hearing safe.

Do away with the importation ban on semiautomatic long guns.

Nationwide reciprocity of concealed handgun permits. My VA drivers license is good in 50 states, why shouldn't my carry permit be?

If we could get all of this handled, I would be willing to submit to a background check for all purchases. Even ones between close friends and family where I know the person is good to go. Anything less is a further erosion of our rights.

I agree here too. This is a good example of arbitrary partial degradation of our rights.

I'd rather see further erosion of your rights. But maybe that's just me.

And then back to the liberal commentary.

See, I don't think you are actually that liberal but maybe you don't fully grasp how silly it is that two 15 round mags are no more dangerous, than a 30 rounder that a 14.5" rifle is not really more concealable than a 16", or than an import semi-auto rifle is no more dangerous than a domestic.

 

[RunninInGA]

I'd rather see further erosion of your rights. But maybe that's just me.

Couldn't be further away from you on this one. In your world, where do erosions stop --- when there's nothing left to take? Why do you perceive the right to dictate erosion of my rights? And why should the majority suffer because of the inability of a certain minority to behave as expected?

 

[JBecker]

I always hear the same story from the left, it's a discussion about "common sense compromise". Firstly, there is nothing common sense about it as the data shows our side is in the right on this. Secondly, a compromise is where both sides come away with something we wanted. All we have gotten in the last hundred years is an erosion of our rights.

They are using the word compromise, but they really are asking for a concession.