Re: JOIN THE NRA !!

Danct <zoemlbx-travel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:3f94761e-c44a-44d0-a868-5c0f5028121f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Dec 16, 11:37 am, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net> wrote:
Danct <zoemlbx-tra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:8a607e65-12b5-4cf7-826b-da6
c78017ace@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



On Dec 15, 12:01 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net> wrote:
Danct <zoemlbx-tra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:8e57ae71-ab24-4ce2-957e-
785bdb5c6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Although I'm not sure Russia is a good source for this type of
study for obvious reasons, I have no reason to doubt the data
they produced from the other Countries. My doubt comes when I
read the "conclusions" that they form from this data. The
conclusions they form don't seem to be related to the data when
they say: ["Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not
murder."] This an assumption that may or may NOT be true.

While a *few* ordinary people may murder, as a group, they do not.
You wouldn't call black people murderers simply because a few of
them do.  
Or
refer to Hispanics as gangbangers simply because a few of the are.
 Whe
n
you saw an assumption that black people (meaning in general) are
not murderers, you would not have doubts and state that is an
assumption that may or may not be true.  Yes, your comment may
hold sway when discussin
g
a particular individual, but not the group as a whole.

As a "group" one could make this assumption simply by its very
definition,

Which is the assumption and point that comment in the study made.  It
i
s
not Joe Gunowner who is the problem.  It is not the honest,
hardworking citizen who is the problem no matter how many guns or
what guns he or she owns.  Violent crime (which is what antigunners
should be trying to fix
)
is committed mostly by repeat offenders withing the justice system.
 Ve
ry
few homicides are committed by first time offenders.

I have yet to see the data on that assertion, RD.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609/ai_n17194955

http://sa18.state.fl.us/prosecute/felrot.htm

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abslract/vfluc.htm

How prevalent is inter-jurisdictional offending in Florida?

In 1997, over one-half of all arrest events (63%) involved an offender
who had previously been arrested by more than one law enforcement agency,
and over one-third (36%) involved an offender who had been arrested in
more than one county. These figures, up significantly from those for 1980
(28% and 16%, respectively), suggest that, in any given year, law
enforcement can expect a substantial proportion of their arrests to
involve an offender who has had previous contact with another law
enforcement agency in the state. Table 1 shows the extent of repeat and
inter-jurisdictional offending in Florida for 1980 and 1997.

Crucial to the question of differences in offender mobility between these
two years, however, is the difference in the proportion of arrest events
that involved a repeat offender, a difference of 35 percentage points.

The distribution of these inter-jurisdictional offenders within the pool
of total and repeat offenders and the extent and type of their offending
is the subject of the remainder of this paper.

Here is the URL. See table 1.

Here is another:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fdluc04.htm

REad the highlight notes. Then look at Table at this URL:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/fdluc/2004/tables/fdluc04st06.htm


"Antigunners" is not an accurate term RD.

Yes, it is.

I'm not anti-anything other than ignorance.

I haven't claimed that you were.

My brother is an avid hunter and gun-owner and I love
him very much. As to what the "gun control proponents" should be
trying to "fix" is their own affair, however I would think that you
would have gleaned from my posts here of my concerns on this very
topic.

See my comment above.

however my point is that when the study is specifically
about the relationship of guns to murder, I'm surprised they would
make a statement of fact in their conclusion that was outside the
scope of what they were studying, and not even support the "fact'
with a cite.

I supported it with math.

There is some data that shows a high degree of relationship of
the victim's familiarity to the assailant

No, there isn't.  The parameter called "acquaintance" is someone
other than a friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, neighbor, employee,
employer, etc. as those are other categories in that same study.
 (Which, BTW, is the National Crime Victimization Survey or NCVS)
 Therefore the category "acquaintance" contains those folks who are
known to the victim but with whom there is little or no social
interaction.  The killer could be a local drug dealer, someone from
the same school, the local clerk at the Stop-N-Rob, the dude who
fills your car at the gas station.  No high degree of relationship
exists.

This is actually not correct, RD. Maybe it's been awhile since you've
looked at this, but based on the cite you gave me (dept of justice)
farther along here I saw some interesting information on this:

In 2006 there were 6,094,390 crimes of violence committed. The break-
down is as follows (i'm using the study's own terms):
*Family members accounted for 23.4%
*Well-known acquaintances ------24.6%
*Casual acquaintances -----------16.2%

We were discussing homicides, weren't we? Here is the data on homicides:

"For murder victims, 43% were related to or acquainted with their
assailants; 14% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of
victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2002.

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

Look at the table at this next URL and look at the column headings.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/reldetailunweightedtab.htm

So, even if you take out the "casual" acquaintances, then the other
two account for 48% of the crimes of violence in 2006. Not exactly an
insignificant number and certainly deserving of the consideration I
previously have pointed out.

Of course it is deserving of consideration. It just isn't as large a
number or percentage as most folks think it is.

in these cases that would
beg to be at least addressed along with such a statement in my
opinion.

You should take a look at the NCVS.  Here is a URL:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

This is the section that covers crime and victims statistics.



Being a "scientific" study, I

see no need for "assumptions" especially in the "conclusions"
portion.

It was an editorial comment on the conclusion they reached.

I believe in effect, that's the same thing.

I have seen some data that would question this assumption and
can't help but wonder if any studies have specifically addressed
this.

Please let me in on this cite that shows ordinary citizens as a
group as murderers.  I haven't seen one.  ;)

Further along they again say: ["there is no reason for laws
prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible
adults because such people virtually never commit murder."].
This has been said by many, however am yet to see the proof of
this.

Hard to prove a negative, but assume 10,000 murders in a year.
 Assume that al of them were done by ordinary, law abiding,
responsible adults.
 
(Even when 2 out of 3 homicides show at least one party involved
in drugs or gang activity.)  Anyway, we have 10,000 murderers in
our assumption.
  
Now, there are approximately 80 million gun owners in the US in 40
million households. Let's calculate that percentage who, in our
assumption, committed murder that year.  Hmmmmmm, let's
see.....minu
s
t
he
two....carry the one.....subract the six and we have......0.0125%.
 Tha
t
would mean that 99.9875% were  not murderers.  I guess we could sa
y t
hat,
as a group, ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults don't commit
murder.

But you understand the same could be said of Republicans or
Democrats or union workers or cab drivers.

The same would be true in any group that met those parameters.

Yes, you could even say the same thing about all convicted felons or
Iranians or people with mental illness and get a similar result. Each
one of these people as a group don't commit murder either.
Unfortunately this doesn't tell us much, which is why I pointed out my
problem with the authors of your study making such a statement in
their conclusion. That's all.

However, it supports their statement.

It touches on what Scout likes to

espouse: "correlation does not imply causation". The actual data on
this might be telling.

The actual data would be even more telling since only about a third
of those homicides had clean parties that were not involved in drugs
or gangs.  IOW, the person doing most of the killing or most of the
violent crime is NOT Joe Gunowner.

Joe Gunowner doesn't do drugs or drink?

A word got left out. There should be no 's' on the end of 'gang' and the
left out word was 'activity'. That is what happens when one types in a
hurry.

Maybe you need to come back
into the real word here, RD.

Nope just need to put all the words and letters in place. ;)

FWIW, Scout is exactly correct....correlation is not causation.  If
it was, then we could assume Diet Coke causes obesity and pencils
cause spelling errors.

This is correct and why I pointed this out in relation to making such
a slanted conjecture at the end of a study that I assume they want
people to take as a real scientific study.

However, their statement was more supported by the data than claims to
the contrary.


--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman


"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."
.

Loading