1
   

GUN SALES UP: CRIME DOWN ( too dangerous )

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 11:48 am
fishin wrote:
parados wrote:
I did. The article doesn't say what OSM stated in the thread title.


Ah! I see... So your entire complaint here and the reason you posted the 2005 FBI UCR was because of the thread title? You purposely ignored the actual article so that you could just argue about a title??
It seems you purposely ignored my comments on the article.
Quote:

Quote:
You can't make the leap that more guns equals less crimes based on the article. It also makes it impossible to make the leap that more guns caused less gun crimes since there was more crime in total. More guns to prevent crime would have had to prevent crime if there was an actual connection between the two.

Fewer gun crimes can not be shown to be caused by more guns. There is no direct correlation.


As I said earlier, I don't know how the stats fall out for sure but the article very clearly identifies that it is talking about firearms related crimes and no, you can't make the leap from "more guns caused less gun crimes since there was more crime in total" because it's apples and oranges.

You also can't prove the claim that guns caused any crimes at all using your linked stats for the same reason.
I am not the one that drew conclusions. OSM and the author of the article did. "gun rights organizations contend that this bolsters their contention
that armed citizens deter criminals. " It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It does prove one thing though. Some people believe you can claim actions in 2003 are a response to 2005 gun sales. Do you believe that fishin?
Quote:

The only way to find the validity of the claims in the article is to find the stats they used and figure out if the stats are accurate and whether they've interpreted them correctly.
I have pointed that out. The stats have been misrepresented as being from 2005..
Quote:

Quote:
By the way, I can find no published report by the FBI on the number of gun crimes in 2005. The preliminary FBI report doesn't include it. (It is included in the final reports for other years.) I wonder where the author got his numbers from.


I did a quick Google search and the NSSF lists/links where they got their stats from in their press release:
http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?AoI=generic&PRloc=common/PR/&PR=060506.cfm

I don't know if any of the Federal agencies have complete 2005 stats yet. It usually takes them at least a full year to compile them all.

So why did the author of the article state...

Quote:
Gun crimes, suicides and firearms-related accidents declined last year at the same time that firearm and ammunition sales climbed,

That statement is factually incorrect. The nssf site states..
Quote:
* Most recent year for which statistics have been compiled; may be 2005, 2004 or earlier
In reality the only number they may be using from 2005 is the treasury reciepts. I can find nothing related to 2005 and those reciepts.

From the 2004 ATF report on annual firearms.. approximately 3 million were manufactured.
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/stats/afmer/afmer2004.pdf
The manufacturing reports show a slight decrease from year to year in the number of guns manufactured from 1998-2004.

The real interesting stat found in the Commerce in Firearms in the United States is that in 1993 - 8 millions guns were sold. In 2004 about 4.5 million were sold.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:33 pm
Wilso wrote:
That bold type you use speaks volumes about your personality. You are definitely compensating for something. It might be lack of height, lack of strength, lack of personality, lack of friends, but one thing is for certain. You are miles away from being a stable individual,

O, I see that you are a psychiatrist ?
or, minimally, have a Ph. D. in psychology, right ?
and THAT is how u diagnose your patients ?

With such ad hominem mud slinging as u offer,
you are a FINE ONE to diagnose personality disorders, right ?


Quote:

and probably shouldn't be allowed within miles of a firearm.

I am old, fat, ugly and have armed myself
since the age of 8, and have a fairly decent gun collection, with no untoward results,
contrary to your expectations, based upon my choice of font coloration,
and based upon the passion with which your posts prove you to detest personal freedom.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:42 pm
Wilso wrote:
I don't live in such a corruptly violent society as the US.

The last time I heard statistics on guns in the US, was on an ABC radio segment. Whoever the talking head was, he quoted a statistic to the effect that of the 30000 odd gun related deaths in the US each year, less than 200 were justifiable homicides by people in self defense. I have no reason to disbelieve that data, so I believe that those who want weapons for self defence, are living a fantasy. If you want to refute that, go ahead, but until you do, I will consider people like you to be dangerous nut cases, who are more likely to create crimes than prevent them.

I guess that tells us something about YOU,
if u believe alleged facts with no idea who is telling them to u,
and u further believe that all but 200 homicides of an alleged 30,000
were not justifiable, but even if we were to grant that, momentarily
for purposes of argument,
the fact remains that every man has the inalienable right
to defend his life and other property from violent depredation
and has the right to access to the optimally necessary
emergency equipment to do that.

To the extent that this right has been infringed by government,
it is only by USURPATION, with the same authority as a schoolyard bully.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:49 pm
Insofar as suicide is concerned,
I do not agree with the article 's implied condemnation thereof.

A man has the natural right to end his life.
His life belongs to HIM; certainly not to any GOVERNMENT, nor to society.

The means by which he opts to end it
is a private and personal matter,
so long as he does not injure anyone else in execution of the act.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:01 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I guess that tells us something about YOU,
if u believe alleged facts with no idea who is telling them to u,
You seem to do just that by posting the article at the start of this thread. It is filled with alleged facts that turn out to be factually incorrect.

Quote:
and u further believe that all but 200 homicides of an alleged 30,000
were not justifiable, but even if we were to grant that, momentarily
for purposes of argument,
This simple fact can be found in the FBI crime stats. In 2004 there were 170 justifiable homicides committed with a firearm while there were 9,326 firearm murders and 14,121 total murders. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf
Quote:

the fact remains that every man has the inalienable right
to defend his life and other property from violent depredation
and has the right to access to the optimally necessary
emergency equipment to do that.

To the extent that this right has been infringed by government,
it is only by USURPATION, with the same authority as a schoolyard bully.
David[/b]
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 07:52 am
parados wrote:
I am not the one that drew conclusions. OSM and the author of the article did. "gun rights organizations contend that this bolsters their contention that armed citizens deter criminals.


Sorry, I didn't mean "You" in the sense of "Parados" but "you" in the sense of "Anyone". Better stated, I should have said "No one can make..."

Quote:
It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It does prove one thing though. Some people believe you can claim actions in 2003 are a response to 2005 gun sales. Do you believe that fishin?


The stats listed on the NSSF site do appear to uphold THEIR press release. The author of the story originally posted appears to have slanted it. I'm not sure if that's just sloppy reporting or intentional. (I'm not even sure if the original is an actual story from a real paper. I haven't looked into it and it could very well just be a post from someone's blog. Omsig tends to post things that only support his view so it wouldn't surprise me to find that to be the case.)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 07:56 am
fishin wrote:
Omsig tends to post things that only support his view so it wouldn't surprise me to find that to be the case.


None of the rest of us, however, would ever do something like that. 'Scuse me, i gotta go polish my halo now.

(Just wry humor, Fishin' . . . no personal insult is intended.)
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 08:17 am
Ah! I just found the "Hawaii Reporter" WWW site and the actual story that was originally posted.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2eddcda2-aab4-4dd2-af10-20ea8b29e8b8

A telling little tidbit from the very bottom of the page got left off in the original post here on A2K:

"Dave Workman is the Senior Editor of Gun Week Magazine. More at http://www.gunweek.com

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly."


IMO that, in itself, probably explains the wording of the "article".
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 12:56 pm
Quote:
HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly."


And apparently, will print anything, even if the piece inaccurately mis-represents the facts in evidence.

Zat's because an editorial ain't journalism or even news, zit's Opinion.

Joe(let's us kneel)Nation
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 02:00:38