patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

Looks like that handgun ban really works!!

You really have trouble with numbers and graphs. The Chicago total homicides is down sharply even if the percentage committed by guns is up. What is the percentage committed by guns look like in other large cities for the same time frame? Without that information your chart is utterly meaningless. You are the king of the meaningless factoid.

Here is murders by city, but only the last 10 years. Note that the cities in states with tough gun laws dropped much more quickly than without. Chicago has tough gun laws, but the surrounding state doesn't so bringing guns into the city is childs play, making the city gun laws pretty ineffective. Of course if you had actually read the article you would have known that.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/01/the-year-in-murder-2013-marks-a-historic-low-for-many-cities.html

bob2356 says

Chicago has tough gun laws, but the surrounding state doesn't so bringing guns into the city is childs play, making the city gun laws pretty ineffective.

Is that Gunmate Change!

Here is another city

Would you conclude that cold weather causes gun crimes?

Bigsby says

I'm pro gun control, but that graph doesn't prove it was the reason for the decline.

In this thread: http://patrick.net/?p=1244932, Call it Quits is claiming that Chicago gun control was a failure. Obviously, if the murder rate has gone DOWN since passing gun control, one cannot claim that more people are being murdered with guns, at least not without using some extremely warped logic.

CaptainShuddup says

Didn't Chicago just produce news, last week end or a few week ends ago? Something like 16 people were shot.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

indigenous says

Would you conclude that cold weather causes gun crimes?

No, because I'm not an idiot. You have cherry picked some factors that are similar, while leaving out a host of others that are not. Here's JUST ONE. It's only one factor, so don't treat this as though I have posted an exhaustive list of why Illinois is different than Texas, m'kay?

Population density, Houston: 3505/sq mi
Population density, Chicago: 11,864.4/sq mi

The bottom line here, is that to compare murder rates between two cities vis a vis their gun laws would require that you look at the murder rates OVER TIME, not just one year. Chicago has ALWAYS had a higher murder rate than Houston, even when they didn't have gun control laws. But then, cherry-picking data and presenting it out of context is a pretty typical right-wing ploy, isn't it?

I took this from Call it Quits' Chicago Police data he posted in his other thread. He seems to think it identifies an upward trend in handgun murders. I beg to differ:

Handgun murder in Chicago:

1994: 602
1995: 523
1996: 521
1997: 487
1998: 450
1999: 376
2000-2002 na
2003: 442
2004: 313
2005: 327
2006: 373
2007: 316
2008: 402

1994 was the peak. I would imagine people still had guns in the 1980s. It's not like a ban on handgun sales is going to instantly make all the guns vanish. What is obvious is that it did not cause the murder rate to rise in the last 20 years.

indigenous says

Would you conclude that cold weather causes gun crimes?

No I would conclude that picking out 2 cities is meaningless. Something that you don't have the logic skills to understand.

bob2356 says

No I would conclude that picking out 2 cities is meaningless. Something that you don't have the logic skills to understand

Ah yes truth by proclamation, that is your logic skill?

indigenous says

Ah yes truth by proclamation, that is your logic skill?

Bob is correct. Your comparison is not logical. That's not a proclamation; it's logic. I already explained to you in great detail why your comparison doesn't hold up. Apparently you are too stupid to comprehend what I wrote.

Homeboy says

But then, cherry-picking data and presenting it out of context is a pretty typical right-wing ploy, isn't it?

And projection is a classical left wing ploy.

As others have pointed out, the original chart is about as useful as global warming hysteria claims: No URL. It examines murder rate rather than gunshot fatalities. And even then, a useful gunshot fatality rate should examine guns used by criminals and not in self defense (A woman shooting a rapist to death would be considered "bad" according to general gun death statistics while gun freedom advocates would say that's a good thing.)

And the biggest predicator of violent crime would tend to be typical Demoratic party race constituents which explains why white liberals tend to live outside of such areas. Trying to make the world into Sweden by getting rid of Europeans is insanity and suicide. I prefer Catholicism. It's a lot more rational by comparison.

PolishKnight says

And projection is a classical left wing ploy.

Projection? How is that projection? The data in my chart is not cherry-picked, nor is it presented out of context. I understand your point that is a chart of murders rather than murders specifically by guns, but you also must understand that, all other things being equal, those two things likely bear some sort of relationship. There is no intent to deceive, and it is certainly better evidence than that presented by the other side, essentially that "some people were shot over the weekend". That means nothing out of context.

PolishKnight says

As others have pointed out, the original chart is about as useful as global warming hysteria claims: No URL. It examines murder rate rather than gunshot fatalities.

I provided data on handgun murders, and it ALSO fell. Did you read the thread? Besides, you people on the right seem perfectly fine accepting that a single weekend of violence is proof that a gun control law failed, with no contextual data WHATSOEVER, but then want to pick apart any evidence to the contrary. That shows a very clear bias.

Remember that the hypothesis, as presented by Call It Quits, is that Chicago gun-control laws have actually resulted in MORE gun violence. Proving that is a rather tall order, and NONE of you has even come close to that. The onus would be on the one advancing the hypothesis to prove it, not on the one disputing it to DISprove it. Nit-picking my evidence to the contrary does not prove your theory.

PolishKnight says

And even then, a useful gunshot fatality rate should examine guns used by criminals and not in self defense (A woman shooting a rapist to death would be considered "bad" according to general gun death statistics while gun freedom advocates would say that's a good thing.)

If you have such data, please post it. Otherwise, what I posted is MUCH more useful than Call it Quits' useless emotional reaction to purely anecdotal information. You claim that we need X, Y and Z, but I don't see you PROVIDING X, Y, and Z.

PolishKnight says

And the biggest predicator of violent crime would tend to be typical Demoratic party race constituents which explains why white liberals tend to live outside of such areas. Trying to make the world into Sweden by getting rid of Europeans is insanity and suicide. I prefer Catholicism. It's a lot more rational by comparison.

Wow, that seems like a rather random rant. Is there some relevance?

Sucks when someone deletes your posts, doesn't it, Call It Quits? Hee hee.

Homeboy says

I took this from Call it Quits' Chicago Police data he posted in his other
thread. He seems to think it identifies an upward trend in handgun murders. I
beg to differ:

Handgun murder in Chicago:

Do you have data per capita?

Didn't Chicago's population shrink by about 7-8% from 2000-2010?

Call it Crazy says

Specially when they contain FACTS!!!

The word you're looking for is "especially", not specially, moron. Judging from your proficiency in spelling and grammar, I would estimate you dropped out of school around third grade. Is that about right?

socal2 says

Do you have data per capita?

Yes, it is very similar. Peaks in 1994 and declines after that. You have to do a bit of detective work, as Call It Quits posted his chart from a third hand source - some stupid right wing blog. The data comes from a brief filed in court, which in turn came from the Chicago Police Department.

Hey, Call It Quits. You realize that when you keep deleting my posts from your thread, that I'm going to do the same to you, right? Just saying. Puss boy.

Wow, I think Call It Quits has really gone off the deep end. I posted some data in this thread, then he deleted it. Then he wrote: "You still haven't posted any data". I pointed out that he deleted my data, and he deleted THAT.

What a fucking psycho.

The advice I would give to anyone trying to argue with any of our resident right-winger commentators, and this goes for me too since I tend to get just as caught up doing it too: Ignore em'. Seriously. These guys come on sites like these and they are all identical: They come in and basically launch a bunch of right-wing troll material in posts with names and content meant to get a rise out of the folks they know don't agree with it:

" Minimum wage is for commies!"
- followed by typical language like:

" Ha ha, those libs are a buncha' commies cuz they want minimum wage!"

They do it not because they might even actually believe in the crap they spew but because they want to get a rise out of the people they're writing the stuff to begin with. Its useless to argue because they aren't here to debate: They're here to probably make themselves in some lame way feel better about themselves. That's all.

In giving these guys the attention they crave you're only giving them exactly what they want. I've already put a bunch of these folks on ignore and should probably put the rest of them on there too. How in the hell a housing blog turned into a playground for right-winger trolls is mystifying to me. But here we are.

So anyway... the ignore button is right there and easy to use. I suggest everyone who doesn't want to come and read a bunch of troll posts do exactly that.

edvard2 says

the ignore button is right there and easy to use. I suggest everyone who doesn't want to come and read a bunch of troll posts do exactly that.

One problem: some of the biggest standard-issue, garden-variety libertarian reptiles on this site are in constant arguments, so that their most stupid statements are quoted by intelligent people.

I see most of the choice material posted by one idiot on my ignore list.

Call it Crazy says

Yep, I did some research... Do you think your chart above came from the Chicago P.D.???

Wow, you really are a stupid fuck, aren't you? Did I say my chart of Chicago homicides came from Chicago P.D.? Did I? No.

This is what I wrote:

I took this from Call it Quits' Chicago Police data he posted in his other thread. He seems to think it identifies an upward trend in handgun murders. I beg to differ:

Handgun murder in Chicago:

1994: 602
1995: 523
1996: 521
1997: 487
1998: 450
1999: 376
2000-2002 na
2003: 442
2004: 313
2005: 327
2006: 373
2007: 316
2008: 402

2 questions:

1. Is my name "Call it Quits"? No, it is not.
2. Does that data right there above look like the chart you just copied and pasted from my original post? No, it does not.

So how in god's name are you getting that I said MY chart of Chicago homicides was taken from Chicago P.D. data? I never said anything even REMOTELY like that.

You really are one confused son of a bitch, you know that?

edvard2 says

So anyway... the ignore button is right there and easy to use. I suggest everyone who doesn't want to come and read a bunch of troll posts do exactly that.

You're right of course. I did have Call it Quits on ignore for a long time, but the entire time he followed me around like a puppy dog and took pot shots at me every time I posted. Real hateful stuff, too. I could see the posts because posts show on the preview page even if you have the person on ignore. Well, it's much more fun to fuck with the guy and make him look like a fool, which isn't hard.

I turned the tables on the guy. He's so bent out of shape now that he's resorted to deleting the evidence I post, then saying, "you haven't posted any evidence". He is seriously flipping out, and I am enjoying every moment of it.