At 8/28/07 08:30 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
that changed counting methods in 1998
Prove it. Then prove that there is some other more accurate source.
Waht do you mean prove it? Go look around the site, and look for the reason why the graphs change colours in 1998. Know your source.
which records homicide instead of murder
Actually I linked to the part that stated SPECIFICALLY murder as well, which has gone up since 1997.
I must have missed that, because all I saw were two sources on homicide that you misrepresented as murder. Which page did you link to it on? I'll go check it out.
and which includes about 100 deaths that can't possibly be attributed to gun involvement
Doesn't matter, murder still went up.
and 250 murders which started during the 70s but weren't recorded until the early 2000s.
Prove it.
I already pointed you to this. Your source, victims of Dr. Harold Shipman, read the footnotes.
Congratulations, you're pulling a me by being right for once, sort of.
No you're not right. You're wrong, because you create the most ridiculous excuses for not accepting what are the most persuasive facts this debate has ever and will ever see.
Persuasive? Ok, let's look at one of your claims from earlier.You claim that on page 14, we can see an increase in homicide from 1997 to the present day. Since it dipped by one going into 97/98, I'll even take it easy on you and use that value. This goes up to 746 in 05/06. Assuming constant population (Given the tendency for population growth, this assumption helps YOU, not ME), we get this data:
97/98
Mean: 0.0000116733
SD: 0.003416590000
N: 52084500
05/06
Mean: 0.0000146685
SD: 0.003784530000
N: 52084500
Performing an unpaired t-test on this data yields p = 0.6716. That means that there's a 67% probability that this difference is due to chance and not an actual effect of any change to the system.
You have the lowest fucking standard of "proof" that I have ever seen. Check your statistics for significance BEFORE you post them.
You repeatedly nit-pick each thing, all while entirely failing to even prove the things you claim that somehow discredit what I've stated.
What is it that you think I'm actually claiming? I posted my actual opinions on this topic a page or two ago, after you called me out on it, and you failed to respond to them.
If I were the one trying to dismiss those statistics, I'd say that they're erroneous because they place all crimes on the same level
Prove it.
No. I'm not the one who has an interest in proving those statistics wrong. I'm just saying that if I was going to try to dismiss them, instead of going tony's route and saying "You have made unspecified misinterpretations of data," my first idea would be to examine the types of crimes considered to be DGUs.
Then, prove that something other than the OFFICIAL STATS FROM THE UK HOME OFFICE are more credible.
I'm not arguing with the credibility of your sources, I'm arguing with your abuse and misrepresentation of the statistics within.
However, since the difference is so large, and he has (I believe) access to the reports that you got the estimate from, it's his job to show that there's some sort of significant flaw in the numbers
That's your job.
Pff, he's the one arguing with those statistics, he can do it if he wants to. To be honest though, he probably won't be able to.
No I wouldn't. I'd only have to prove, as I did, that in the US, they commit crime at a higher rate, which boosts the nation-wide rate, thus making it appear that if the US had the same racial-make up as the UK, it would therefore have a lower murder/gun crime rate, and vice versa. Therefore, racial make-up is a factor.
No, that doesn't show anything. Unless you show that they're inherently prone to crime, you can't reliably say that the UK would have similar problems with similar racial makeup. You can only blame racial proportions if race is the actual underlying cause of violence.
By the way, this is why I consider most gun control arguments pretty weak. People make the mistake of claiming that guns are the cause of violence, when they aren't.
What I would do if I were you is cite what the minority crime problem already suggests: the US has a much higher rate of gang-related violence, and the presence of gangs is more ubiquitous in the US.
Prove it.
Pff. Ever seen a "gangster" in the UK that wasn't a middle-class white kid trying to look tough? I sure haven't. On the other hand, I've never been to the UK, but you know how it is.
Then prove that the higher murder rate doesn't exist to the same degree among those minorities who don't belong to gangs.
You know what, if you can find me any sort of reliable surveys about who's involved in organised crime, I'd be happy to do it. Otherwise, we'll just have to accept "Members of criminal organisations are more likely to be criminals" as intuitive.
This argument has lots of advantages:
- People can't accuse you of racism
Pfft.
Yeah, yeah, I know. But when you say "minorities" most people just don't want to hear it. If you say "gang violence," they have to recourse.
- It's already self-evident that gangs are inherently violent, no graphs needed.
Prove it. Prove that the average person in a gang is more likely to be violent than both a white citizen or a non-gang minority. (this is a given but I'm trying to show you how ridiculous it is when you nit-pick everything)
See, this is why I said that it was "self-evident". Even you admit that it's a given, and I think it's something that everyone we debate with will be able to agree on.
The assumption "Gangs are responsible for more violence than an average dude" is not as much of a logical leap as "Any increase in the homicide rate for a given year must imply a proportional increase in the murder rate"
In any case, surveys about violent gang membership tend to be unreliable.
Prove that minorities have a high enough gang membership rate to cause their higher nation-wide violence/gun crime rate higher for each minority group.
The first google image search result for "crips" suggests that minorities have a higher incidence of gang membership than the general population. Judging by this sample, slightly over 100% of the crips are black men.
- Bonus argument: Since they're organised, they can share firearms between them whenever they're needed, making them even more dangerous for fewer resources.
Prove it.
Um, ok.
A: People have hands (You can check this yourself! Look it up at the end of your arm furthest from the shoulder)
B: People often activate firearms with their hands (Source: 1985 Schwarzenegger hit Commando)
C: People can remove guns from their hands with trivial surgery after firing them (Source: Bruce Campbell's shotgun in Army of Darkness. Note that the same may not be true of chainsaws.)
Therefore, people can share guns.
- Bonus argument: With a profit motive for the firearms trade, gang fighting over territory and resources will become even bloodier than it already is.
Prove it.
A: It happened with alcohol prohibition
B: It happened with drug prohibition
Therefore, probably this too, and even if it doesn't happen, it still doesn't make a gun ban a good idea.
</Elfer tactics>
Hey, all I asked you to do was show that the variance was statistically significant. For someone who goes on and on about how much you've proved through statistics, you'd think you'd know about significance, right?
But hey, how about I use some of your tactics?
As you can see on this highly relevant graph, gun and non-gun murder rates have dropped off in every western nation that has implemented stricter gun control methods.
</cellardoor6 tactics