DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:To say policy has no bearing on the culture is silly. So try again.

Culture dictates policy.

I can't blame you for not knowing why Aurora is not Chicago, but the policies are irrelevant. The criminal culture in those two cities is completely different so you couldn't expect similar policies to have similar effects.

Let's put it this way, when I think of Aurora I think Fox Valley Mall, golf courses, luxury car dealerships, and office parks. There is nowhere in Aurora I would feel unsafe, even the dreaded "East Side." Compare that to Chicago where there a hundreds of square miles of land on the South Side I wouldn't step foot in because my presence alone would be trouble. I have experienced violent crime in the good parts of the city. The greatest fear I've ever had in Aurora was forgetting where I parked at the mall.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:To say policy has no bearing on the culture is silly. So try again.

Culture dictates policy.

I can't blame you for not knowing why Aurora is not Chicago, but the policies are irrelevant. The criminal culture in those two cities is completely different so you couldn't expect similar policies to have similar effects.

That's a ridiculous statement. The two places had murder trending upward and then one of them made some policy adjustments that resulted in reversing the trend.
Unless you can show me something about Chicago that would have prevented those policies from having similar effect you have no logical basis for your assertion!

People and their choices are the difference. That is a fact. It can be the criminals and their choices and it can be the police/community/politicians and their choices, either or a combination of both.
Or can you offer some other catalyst for the relatively sudden reversal in Aurora?

vision wrote:Let's put it this way, when I think of Aurora I think Fox Valley Mall, golf courses, luxury car dealerships, and office parks. There is nowhere in Aurora I would feel unsafe, even the dreaded "East Side." Compare that to Chicago where there a hundreds of square miles of land on the South Side I wouldn't step foot in because my presence alone would be trouble. I have experienced violent crime in the good parts of the city. The greatest fear I've ever had in Aurora was forgetting where I parked at the mall.

So both places have "good parts" yet the good parts in Chicago are unsafe.....ok....is it a magic spell? A curse? Are Chicagoans raised to be criminals? Actually that last one has some truth to it but it still fits my observation.
You say it is a different atmosphere. Well the atmosphere in Chicago is the result of people making bad choices.

Sigh. I'm dot going to cite everything because I don't have all night and I don't care all that much.

First, you see more violent crime in high population areas, generally in cities with 250,000 or more people (and increasing with population). Aurora is 6% the size of Chicago. They aren't even in the same classification. You might as well compare Chicago with Mayberry.

Population
Chicago: 2,851,268
Aurora: 172,945

Second, economic factors are related to crime (of course we all know this). People who live in Aurora are for the most part pretty well off financially (including my friends who live there).

Estimated median household income in 2009
Aurora: $59,844
Illinois: $53,966 <---- state median
Chicago: $45,734

On average, Aurora experiences just 2% of the murders Chicago does and is usually way below the national average. Aurora doesn't have a problem with murder. Not to diminish the deaths of those who died in Aurora, but having zero deaths one year is more likely do to statistical variance than any "policy changes."

Murder per 100,000 persons
Year - Chicago - Aurora
1999 - 641 - 9
2000 - 627 - 15
2001 - 665 - 8
2002 - 648 - 25
2003 - 651 - 25
2004 - 448 - 17
2005 - 446 - 13
2006 - 467 - 4
2007 - 443 - 12
2008 - 510 - 2
2009 - 459 - 5
2010 - 432 - 4
2011 - 431 - 2

AVG - 528 - 11

That news article you linked to just sounds like a bunch of people patting themselves on the back for something that might have happened on it's own. I'm glad they were able to take care of the "gang-bangers," but really, they aren't facing the kind of massive, deeply entrenched crime that Chicago does.

I'm sorry Will, but if you had actually been to Chicago or Aurora you would see how silly your statements are. You'll just have to take my word for it. Aurora is mostly shopping malls and office complexes. You just aren't going to see the kind of crime comparable to Chicago's inner-city. Crime is so widespread in Chicago that, like I mentioned above, even the good parts of town aren't really "safe." You can be waiting for a bus or cab in the ritzy North Loop area and still get knifed if you aren't careful.

http://www.city-data.com


EDIT :
Just for kicks, here is the data with regression. After looking at this I'm less convinced than ever policy is having any effect. Apparently both policies are reducing murder. Or neither of them are. I suspect rates are just following the national average.

You diluted the data by almost 100% to get your conclusions!
Why not throw in a decade or two more and you could statistically eliminate the results on a graph completely.

The policy changes Aurora made were cited as being put in place between 2005 and 2007. As you can see from your table that is when they started to see a serious drop in murders and it isn't just a one or two year anomaly.

So, even starting to log the data at the beginning of 2005 when only the first changes began you get quite a different result:

During the policy change period Auroras average drops from 11 to 7, a 46% improvement over your numbers.
During that same period Chicago's average drops from 528 to 455, only a 14% improvement over your numbers.


If you start logging in 2007 when all the policy changes were in place then Auroras numbers are 66% better than you stated them to be and Chicago's are still the same!
So the trend for Aurora is definitely downward and the trend for Chicago is murder as usual.

So, no, they are not moving the same way or at the same rate if you don't include the 6 years of data THAT WAS PRE POLICY CHANGE!

The whole point I'm making is the right target will get reductions in gun violence.
Excuses and targeting the wrong thing gets you more of the same.
All you are proving is statistics can be tricky.

If Aurora hadn't made those changes the violence that spread to Chicago's 'good areas' would spread to Aurora. Really what they have done is removed that Chicago 'atmosphere' as you like to call it. The same method of removal will work inside Chicago. Due to size and corruption of logic in Chicago the results will come slower but they will come if they pull their head out of their ass.

As of Jan 3rd : 5 murders in Chicago, off to a bang up start!
What is it about guns in Chicago that make them so much more likely to murder people??

Will Robinson wrote:What is it about guns in Chicago that make them so much more likely to murder people??

the guns in Chicago actually shoot themselves. the guns everywhere else require a person to pull the trigger

Will Robinson wrote:You diluted the data by almost 100% to get your conclusions!

I linked to the data. I used all of it. That's how we uncover truths. Maybe you aren't familiar with this?

Will Robinson wrote:Why not throw in a decade or two more and you could statistically eliminate the results on a graph completely.

I would if I could. And I would love to see that data along with other policy changes.

Will Robinson wrote:The policy changes Aurora made were cited as being put in place between 2005 and 2007. As you can see from your table that is when they started to see a serious drop in murders and it isn't just a one or two year anomaly.

Except the spike in murders is an anomaly and not a trend. The data before 2005 verifies this. The drop in murders started in 2003, two years before this "policy" was enacted. Check the data Will. Also, one event like Newtown is all you need to wreak havok on such small numbers.

Will Robinson wrote:So, even starting to log the data at the beginning of 2005 when only the first changes began you get quite a different result:

During the policy change period Auroras average drops from 11 to 7, a 46% improvement over your numbers.
During that same period Chicago's average drops from 528 to 455, only a 14% improvement over your numbers.


If you start logging in 2007 when all the policy changes were in place then Auroras numbers are 66% better than you stated them to be and Chicago's are still the same!
So the trend for Aurora is definitely downward and the trend for Chicago is murder as usual.

So, no, they are not moving the same way or at the same rate if you don't include the 6 years of data THAT WAS PRE POLICY CHANGE!

This is the exact same crap climate denier idiots do to show warming, cherry picking data. It's not going to work here Will, all the data is in front of us. You just look like a fool now.

Will Robinson wrote:The whole point I'm making is the right target will get reductions in gun violence.
Excuses and targeting the wrong thing gets you more of the same.
All you are proving is statistics can be tricky.

All you are proving is that you don't know how they work.

The murders in Aurora would be considered statistical noise when superimposed over the Chicago data. In fact, that's why I provided two separate graphs (check the y-axis) because the Aurora data just looks like a straight line at the bottom of Chicago's data. I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence of policy at work. Now, if Aurora can go several years in a row without murders then it's worth investigating the cause. But more than likely it has less to do with gun control and more to do with socioeconomic factors (again, residents in Aurora are much better off financially).

Double post!

Because this is so much fun, here is even more data, straight from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics Tool.

First, Chicago and Aurora's murder rate on the same y-axis. As you can see, Aurora is just noise. Not only does it look like Chicago is handling murder rates better, it looks like Aurora doesn't have a "problem" at all.



Second, Chicago and Aurora superimposed over the national average. As I suspected, they follow it rather nicely, although Aurora's data is very irregular because the data is too small.



Finally, one has to wonder why, if Aurora had such great policies in the past (1987), would they change it to allow more murders!? What did they do in 1996 to reduce murder and why didn't it last? Of course there are no answers to this because the murder rate in Aurora is small enough that gun policy has no real influence over the random, expected variance from year to year.



You can't expect Chicago to take Aurora as a policy example. The data just aren't comparable enough to make a judgement.

There is so much wrong with your reasoning I have new found empathy for school teachers. Put down the graphs before you hurt yourself!

Chicago's murder rate is tracking above the national average and Auroras trend is much more improved than Chicago's. Real numbers prove that no matter how much you stare at the pretty colored lines that seem to all be pointing the same direction so you apparently just stop thinking at that discovery. You just don't want to understand what you are comparing.

Here, try this, New York City, 3 times bigger than Chicago, has one fourth the murder rate that Chicago does. This completely kills your size excuse.
They have taken a hard line against thugs and it has paid off. Please show me how Chicago wouldn't benefit from taking similar tactics. Or show me the difference in Chicago's "atmosphere" that excuses their epic failure by comparison to NYC....

...what the hell graphs are you looking at, Will? You're interpreting that data completely incorrectly.

An interesting opinion piece from Russia:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column ... ns_guns-0/

Strange to hear it from such a seemingly unlikely source.

Top Gun wrote:...what the hell graphs are you looking at, Will? You're interpreting that data completely incorrectly.

The graphs in this thread are not mine nor are they the source of my comments. vision has changed his posts so im not sure what graph you are looking at or if it is one i refered to....

However, the assertions I made, that Aurora has a declining murder rate and that Chicago's rate is not trending anywhere near as well as Auroras are based on data that is widely reported.

Beyond that I'm afraid you will have to be specific about any comment of mine you question and ill answer for you.

Top Gun wrote:...what the hell graphs are you looking at, Will? You're interpreting that data completely incorrectly.

It's amazing isn't it? Hahaha. Funny, yet terribly sad at the same time.

vision wrote:

Top Gun wrote:...what the hell graphs are you looking at, Will? You're interpreting that data completely incorrectly.

It's amazing isn't it? Hahaha. Funny, yet terribly sad at the same time.

Take a specific assertion I made and show me with real data how I'm wrong.

You are out of your mind, there is nothing I can say to you. The only thing you have proven is that you have no idea how to interpret data the correct way. I'm sorry.

You can't creatively spin data like this:

Will wrote:During the policy change period Auroras average drops from 11 to 7, a 46% improvement over your numbers.
During that same period Chicago's average drops from 528 to 455, only a 14% improvement over your numbers.

I could just as easily say that Chicago's policies in that period saved 73 more lives than Aurora's and that statement would be true. But you see, both my spin and your spin are both wrong. Because that's not how we do things. Go back to school. (Also I have no idea where you are getting those numbers.)

vision wrote:What do you do after the first armed guard flips out and kills a bunch of kids? Guards to guard the guards? Great plan.

Hmmm...funny how the school Obama sends his girls to, as well as other DC elites do, has 11 armed guards. I guess any day now we'll be reading about one of them flipping out. Be interesting to see who's kids are on the kill list. I suspect Slick will post the list here the day it happens.

Many of you need to read more. Really you do. Schools already have armed police. A lot of the major cities have all kinds of metal detectors in the schools. Then there is the SRO program which have been around since the 1960s my son had one in every school he's been in. So the argument about schools have armed guards is moot police have been roaming the halls since the 60s.

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/resources ... icers.html

vision wrote:You are out of your mind, there is nothing I can say to you. The only thing you have proven is that you have no idea how to interpret data the correct way. I'm sorry.

You can't creatively spin data like this:

Will wrote:During the policy change period Auroras average drops from 11 to 7, a 46% improvement over your numbers.
During that same period Chicago's average drops from 528 to 455, only a 14% improvement over your numbers.

I could just as easily say that Chicago's policies in that period saved 73 more lives than Aurora's and that statement would be true. But you see, both my spin and your spin are both wrong. Because that's not how we do things. Go back to school. (Also I have no idea where you are getting those numbers.)

Yes, you could "say" that Chicago saw 73 more lives "saved" but that would be stupid. They had an average of 73 less murders during the 'post policy' period of 2005-2012 than they did during the longer span of time that you arbitrarily chose, 1999 to 2012. But going from averaging 528 murders per year to 425 per year is hardly cause to claim they are saving lives, it implies 528 is some how normal or expected...

You are the one who posted the average murders for the span of 1999-2012 for both Aurora and Chicago. Then you stopped with that as if it tells you anything relavent to the point I made. It doesnt. The point being that in 2005-2007 Aurora implemented policies to reduce murders/violence and those policies were effective.

So, since you chose that time span of 1999-2012 I compared the average of that whole span with the average of the post policy period of 2005 -2012 since Aurora put into place policies to reduce violence beginning in 2005. Now with that data to compare to you have something that DOES tell us something!

It shows us that Auroras murder rate trends downward at much better rate than Chicago's does. I and the Aurora police department credit a policy change for the improvement.
Auroras trend improves by at least 46% during the post policy period. Chicagos only by 14%. Thus my assertion that Auroras murder rate dropped much better than Chicago's did. And by the way, contrary to your claim, Chicago's murder rate is some 30% HIGHER than the national rate....even though it improved by a whopping 14 % during the post policy period.

So, anything else you need clarification on? Maybe you should pull your head out of your 'atmosphere' and things will be easier to see...

Putting all of the numbers aside (which by the way, can be manipulated by any side of an issue) of course policy has something to do with crime rate, hell policy can be the reason why certain kinds of people choose to live there in the first place. But of course there are also many other reasons why an area can have a high crime rate, and no…poverty is not one of them, I wish people would stop making this excuse. The culture of an area is probably the leading cause of violence in any place IMHO. (and policy is a part of that culture)

Forget the friggin numbers…use some common sense.

BTW there are some studies that show when one area cracks down on something…it moves somewhere else…


And Heretic…how dare you go and introduce facts into the diatribe…errr conversation.

Officer Leonard Penna is the SRO of Newtown Middle School and Officer Jason Flynn is the SRO of Newtown High. So why didn't they have one for the elementary school? Wouldn't have stopped the mass shooting?

http://newtownct.virtualtownhall.net/Pu ... %20Officer

Let the blame game begin. The NRA is now finger pointing that it's all the fault of all those violent video games for our nation's spate of mass shootings. Oh, but ignore that they too, wink, wink, like to participate in the cyber-carnage.

http://www.inquisitr.com/480205/nra-pay ... -violence/

BLAME, BLAME, BLAME, THE LEFT WANT TO BLAME THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT WANTS TO BLAME THE LEFT. it's all bull★■◆●. how about the blame the correct person.

THE ONE THAT PULLS THE DAMN TRIGGER

That's all well and good...except when the shooter isn't in their right mind, which was the case in Newtown. Who gets the blame then?

tunnelcat wrote:Let the blame game begin. The NRA is now finger pointing that it's all the fault of all those violent video games for our nation's spate of mass shootings. Oh, but ignore that they too, wink, wink, like to participate in the cyber-carnage.

http://www.inquisitr.com/480205/nra-pay ... -violence/

As they often do, Penny Arcade absolutely nailed this one.

Top Gun wrote:That's all well and good...except when the shooter isn't in their right mind, which was the case in Newtown. Who gets the blame then?

You can't legislate crazy away but the most responsible person in that particular incident is the first one who died. The mother who let the crazy son access her weapons and was too late to take more effective measures to stop him from becoming a threat to the public. Yes, I just identified the large grey mammal that was standing in the room....

Top Gun wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Let the blame game begin. The NRA is now finger pointing that it's all the fault of all those violent video games for our nation's spate of mass shootings. Oh, but ignore that they too, wink, wink, like to participate in the cyber-carnage.

http://www.inquisitr.com/480205/nra-pay ... -violence/

As they often do, Penny Arcade absolutely nailed this one.

Nailed it? There is a BIG difference between seeing that an exercise of the first amendment could be one of the catalysts that makes young people violent and suggesting everyone lose there 1st amendment right because of it!!

But I guess they don't think it through, any attempt to demonize a pro-second amendment position is fine. To hell with logic!

I think you will find that, although the NRA must enjoy putting it back in Hollywoods/Celebrities faces when it is so deserved, they will be much more pragmatic when suggesting what can be done about it...like NOT suggesting the whole country lose the 1st amendment! Like NOT suggest the founding fathers didn't know we would invent Cinema and TV and radio and internet and Playstation and xBox etc. etc. so they couldn't possibly have intended all those things to be covered under the 1st amendment.

Hypocrisy is everywhere, it’s just funny how we only see it when we want to.

Despite having quite a bit of fun playing Far Cry 3 for the last couple weeks, I have no desire to run around stabbing people with my real life machete.

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!

The issue of violent games is obfuscated. I've been told that the military used FPS simulations to increase their soldier's abilities to engage when it comes down to it. What does that tell you? Video games have an effect on us. TV has an effect on us. Movies have an effect on us. Most sane people can overcome these effects and retain their relationship with reality to an acceptable degree (when was the last time you were afraid of something that didn't exist after watching a horror flick?). I don't know how a responsible society handles these things while retaining freedom, but I know that a responsible person should not expose themselves to things which compromise their judgment.

Any one notice this

http://www.albanytribune.com/09012013-b ... unts-oped/

oy.

/falls over.

Ferno wrote:oy.

/falls over.

good ★■◆●?

well that's very tolerant of them

hypocrites. it's OK if I make money off of you by using your legally earned money while it's stored in my bank. but you're not allowed to make money because I don't approve of your legal activities.

Krom wrote:Despite having quite a bit of fun playing Far Cry 3 for the last couple weeks, I have no desire to run around stabbing people with my real life machete.

Spidey wrote:YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!

Machete? Pffft! You should be going around with your trusty LMG shooting tigers like any self respecting hunter would.



But back on topic, here's what true right wing conspiracy gun nuts come up with when their guns are threatened. Sick.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gen ... 33813.html

I carry a shotgun around for the tigers, one shot is usually enough and gets the job done a lot cheaper than a LMG.

Yeah, the shotgun will put down the tigers and leopards in one shot, but I was making a small joke. You know how all the NRA gun lovers keep defending the U.S. sales of assault weapons, weapons that are normally only used to kill other humans in wartime. But hey, in the cyber gaming world, I make so much cyber money looting and shooting in Far Cry 3, I can afford to pray and spray with a LMG.

If you were trying to make that joke, instead of a LMG you should have used the RPG-7, because everyone knows you should keep a couple of those around for home defense. After all, you never know when some thief or murderer is going to storm your house in a tank. Or you might need it to take out some rabid dogs.

That's why I always carry my handy dandy grenade launcher. Everyone should own one.

tunnelcat wrote:That's why I always carry my handy dandy grenade launcher. Everyone should own one.

You can buy one but first you have to pay the government a $200 tax and wait for the paperwork to clear....about 6 months.

how comforting.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:That's why I always carry my handy dandy grenade launcher. Everyone should own one.

You can buy one but first you have to pay the government a $200 tax and wait for the paperwork to clear....about 6 months.

Hell, I can afford that tax! But what does an actual grenade launcher cost by itself? And the ammo must cost an arm and a leg. I also don't think it's legal to own...........is it?

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:That's why I always carry my handy dandy grenade launcher. Everyone should own one.

You can buy one but first you have to pay the government a $200 tax and wait for the paperwork to clear....about 6 months.

Hell, I can afford that tax! But what does an actual grenade launcher cost by itself? And the ammo must cost an arm and a leg. I also don't think it's legal to own...........is it?

You can own it if you pay the tax and wait for th paperwork to clear. A 40mm launcher that mounts under the barrel of an AR 15 type rifle. No problem. An expensive hobby though.

You see, the same government that wants to outlaw 30 round magazines for semi auto's will let you have a fully automatic "machine gun" with grenade launcher if you like as long as you register it and pay the $200 tax per restricted item. $200 to own the full auto, $200 to own the launcher and $200 for each high explosive shaped charge projectile.

You can own grenades, sawed off shotguns, just about anything you want as long as the fed gets some tax money and your name on 'the list'.

The National Firearms Act of 1934
It comes from Bonnie and Clyde out gunning the FBI. Before then it was legal without restriction.

It's not difficult; you use the same process as any ShortBarrelRifle, MachineGun, or Silencer.
To register as an individual you have to get two copies of the Form 4, with two fingerprint cards, and two 2x2" photos. To register as a trust or corporation you don’t need the photo, fingerprint cards, or LEO signature. More information on NFA Forms can be found at the General Class 3 board.

Then find a dealer with one in stock. You buy it, they send it on a form 3 to a Class 3 dealer in your state, you then send the F4 to the ATF in Georgia. The paperwork then gets forwarded to ATF in W VA. If it is approved you'll know in about 45 days or so. They send one copy of the Form 4 back to you and you pick up your launcher from the dealer.

You get yourself a Form 1, and do the same thing, except a F1 is to build a firearm not to transfer one. You find a dealer with an m203 receiver in stock, buy it and they ship it to any FFL and transfer it as a title 1 rifle. You put the serial number on the F1 and send it to the ATF except F1's go straight to W VA not GA. Once it is approved you can purchase a 40mm barrel to complete your launcher. The only downside of this is you must engrave your name city and state on the launcher somewhere in plain view to the NFA font specifications.

40mm Military Rounds (no tax)
Multipurpose= buckshot (no tax)
HEDP= High explosive shaped charge ($200 tax each)

I have two silencers ordered right now and am filing the papers to build a short barreled rifle.....
Fun!