Ed Huntress wrote:

Despite all the loaded guns in Dallas homes and businesses (and the number,
from a study done in 1988 - 1992 is pretty remarkable; one assumes not much
has changed in that regard), Dallas's burglary rate is six times higher than
that of New York City.

I'd like to see a cite for that

"Rex" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Despite all the loaded guns in Dallas homes and businesses (and the
number, from a study done in 1988 - 1992 is pretty remarkable; one
assumes not much has changed in that regard), Dallas's burglary rate is
six times higher than that of New York City.

I'd like to see a cite for that

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_06.html

Dallas: 17.3/thousand population.
NYC: 2.7/thousand population

Dallas has 6.4 times the burglary rate of New York City.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:44:46 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Jeez, I could have sworn you said, when I asked "How much safer are you
because he's there?", you replied "Two fewer thieves in the world because of
him, obviously. Works for me."


Given that 90% of the crime is caused by 10% of the criminals....its a
wobbler.

They were killed in the commission of a crime. Was it their first
crime?

If not..any future crimes will not be committed by those 2. Since
most criminals are repeat offenders...Id have to say that yes..the
people are safer.

A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

Gunner

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:52:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:29:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


There are some real pestholes of crime in the US, Randy, and sticking to
"principles," arming yourself to the teeth and cheering when the
occasional
criminal gets shot, isn't going to change the size of the threat.


So whats the crime rate in Kennesaw Georgia?

Somewhat higher than that of Hawthorne, NJ.

My old boss lives there. He has an original Peacemaker. It may be the only
gun in town. g


Got cites?

G

Gunner

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:52:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:29:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


There are some real pestholes of crime in the US, Randy, and sticking to
"principles," arming yourself to the teeth and cheering when the
occasional
criminal gets shot, isn't going to change the size of the threat.


So whats the crime rate in Kennesaw Georgia?

Somewhat higher than that of Hawthorne, NJ.

My old boss lives there. He has an original Peacemaker. It may be the only
gun in town. g


Got cites?

G

Gunner

Heck, there's nothing left to shoot with here. d8-)

(Not true, of course. But there are a lot of towns where practically
*nobody* shoots.)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

Despite all the loaded guns in Dallas homes and businesses (and the
number, from a study done in 1988 - 1992 is pretty remarkable; one
assumes not much has changed in that regard), Dallas's burglary rate is
six times higher than that of New York City.

I'd like to see a cite for that


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_06.html

Dallas: 17.3/thousand population.
NYC: 2.7/thousand population

Dallas has 6.4 times the burglary rate of New York City.

--
Ed Huntress




LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS...

People simply call the cops in Dallas
where they don't in New York.

Then your over valued statistics are mere hogwash.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:44:46 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Jeez, I could have sworn you said, when I asked "How much safer are you
because he's there?", you replied "Two fewer thieves in the world because
of
him, obviously. Works for me."

Given that 90% of the crime is caused by 10% of the criminals....its a
wobbler.

They were killed in the commission of a crime. Was it their first
crime?

Based on your stats the chances are 9 out of 10 that they were among the
criminals who commit only 10% of the crime. Those numbers cut both ways.

(Oh, nuts, that isn't right. It's the other way around.)


If not..any future crimes will not be committed by those 2. Since
most criminals are repeat offenders...Id have to say that yes..the
people are safer.

You realize that Doug never said that. d8-)

Of course, we don't know for sure. But we do know that even if they were at
the highest end of the average, together they represent only 1 in 1,000 of
the burglars in Dallas. The point being that you won't even be able to
detect any improvement in the crime rate no matter where they fall on the
curve.

For those who haven't followed this argument through the labyrinth, I'm not
suggesting that those burglars shouldn't have been shot. What I'm saying is
that shooting them has no measurable effect on the crime rate, and thus the
safety, of Dallas.


A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

--
Ed Huntress

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

Despite all the loaded guns in Dallas homes and businesses (and the
number, from a study done in 1988 - 1992 is pretty remarkable; one
assumes not much has changed in that regard), Dallas's burglary rate is
six times higher than that of New York City.

I'd like to see a cite for that


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_06.html

Dallas: 17.3/thousand population.
NYC: 2.7/thousand population

Dallas has 6.4 times the burglary rate of New York City.

--
Ed Huntress


LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS...

People simply call the cops in Dallas
where they don't in New York.

Then your over valued statistics are mere hogwash.

If you read Randy's latest post, he says that they call the cops in NYC and
they respond quickly, and if they did the same in Dallas and they responded
quickly, it would reduce your crime by a whole lot.

If you Texas guys could get together on your story, it would save some time.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

If ten or twelve a day ended up dead, the rest would get the hint
sooner, plus there would be a dozen fewer perps every day. That's
gotta count for something.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
Never underestimate the innate animosity of inanimate objects.
----
http://diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) laptop privacy/glare guards

Ed Huntress wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Rex" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:


Despite all the loaded guns in Dallas homes and businesses (and the
number, from a study done in 1988 - 1992 is pretty remarkable; one
assumes not much has changed in that regard), Dallas's burglary rate is
six times higher than that of New York City.

I'd like to see a cite for that


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_06.html

Dallas: 17.3/thousand population.
NYC: 2.7/thousand population

Dallas has 6.4 times the burglary rate of New York City.

--
Ed Huntress


LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS...

People simply call the cops in Dallas
where they don't in New York.

Then your over valued statistics are mere hogwash.


If you read Randy's latest post, he says that they call the cops in NYC and
they respond quickly, and if they did the same in Dallas and they responded
quickly, it would reduce your crime by a whole lot.

If you Texas guys could get together on your story, it would save some time.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress




hehehehe!

Golly. I swear, Ed, you are starting to sound just like Gunner...

Do you remember the one about the seven blind men and the elephant?
http://members.aol.com/Wildlifer/blindmen.htm

Well, Texas is bigger than the elephant.
Has a lot more parts too.

Richard

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

snip

Golly. I swear, Ed, you are starting to sound just like Gunner...

Do you remember the one about the seven blind men and the elephant?
http://members.aol.com/Wildlifer/blindmen.htm

Well, Texas is bigger than the elephant.
Has a lot more parts too.

A bumper sticker sometimes seen around here is "Read my lips: No more
Texans!" Referring to presidents, of course.

I, for one, am in favor of letting Texans freely emigrate to the United
States. ducking, etc...

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

snip

Golly. I swear, Ed, you are starting to sound just like Gunner...

Do you remember the one about the seven blind men and the elephant?
http://members.aol.com/Wildlifer/blindmen.htm

Well, Texas is bigger than the elephant.
Has a lot more parts too.


A bumper sticker sometimes seen around here is "Read my lips: No more
Texans!" Referring to presidents, of course.

I, for one, am in favor of letting Texans freely emigrate to the United
States. ducking, etc...

--
Ed Huntress




HEY NOW! THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS, FRIEND!

That guy ain't no Texan!

He's from New Haven, Connecticut.

He just calls Texas home to avoid paying Connecticut income tax.

Outta be a law, in fact...

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:54 -0700, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

If ten or twelve a day ended up dead, the rest would get the hint
sooner, plus there would be a dozen fewer perps every day. That's
gotta count for something.

I think even the most leftist among us wouldn't be able to succeed in
arguing that the world is _worse_ for the death of two petty criminals.

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

snip

Golly. I swear, Ed, you are starting to sound just like Gunner...

Do you remember the one about the seven blind men and the elephant?
http://members.aol.com/Wildlifer/blindmen.htm

Well, Texas is bigger than the elephant.
Has a lot more parts too.


A bumper sticker sometimes seen around here is "Read my lips: No more
Texans!" Referring to presidents, of course.

I, for one, am in favor of letting Texans freely emigrate to the United
States. ducking, etc...

--
Ed Huntress




HEY NOW! THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS, FRIEND!

That guy ain't no Texan!

He's from New Haven, Connecticut.

He just calls Texas home to avoid paying Connecticut income tax.

He keeps saying "folks," as in "we have those terrorist folks on the run,
and they have no place to hide." There's hardly a place in the US where one
would say that with a straight face. Did he pick that up in Texas?

I don't know about those Texas transplants, but I still remember LBJ, too.
He was no winner either. He made the word "lips" into two syllables
("lee-yups"). It's a puzzle why we keep electing them.

Outta be a law, in fact...

Hey, if you don't control your own borders, that's what you get:
Transplanted New Englanders.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:42:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:52:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:29:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


There are some real pestholes of crime in the US, Randy, and sticking to
"principles," arming yourself to the teeth and cheering when the
occasional
criminal gets shot, isn't going to change the size of the threat.


So whats the crime rate in Kennesaw Georgia?

Somewhat higher than that of Hawthorne, NJ.

My old boss lives there. He has an original Peacemaker. It may be the only
gun in town. g


Got cites?

G

Gunner

Heck, there's nothing left to shoot with here. d8-)

(Not true, of course. But there are a lot of towns where practically
*nobody* shoots.)


Lots of guns in my litttle hick desert oil field town. Last two
murders...some years ago, were with knife and beer bottle/boots.

Burglaries are up though..lots of illegals moving into town.

Gunner

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

--
Ed Huntress


Then we need to shoot more of them. The survivors will get the hint.

Gunner

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:42:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Heck, there's nothing left to shoot with here. d8-)

(Not true, of course. But there are a lot of towns where practically
*nobody* shoots.)


Lots of guns in my litttle hick desert oil field town. Last two
murders...some years ago, were with knife and beer bottle/boots.

Burglaries are up though..lots of illegals moving into town.

Gunner

We have lots of legal immigrants from India and Korea, and a fair number of
illegals from Mexico. They ride bikes and keep a very low profile. No crime
from those groups, especially the Mexicans, who stick out like sore thumbs
and they know it.

Much of our crime comes in on the commuter train. No kidding. They get on in
Newark, Elizabeth, or New Brunswick, stop off here and sometimes even ride
the commuter train home after some unnoticed petty theft.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You
can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

--
Ed Huntress


Then we need to shoot more of them. The survivors will get the hint.

You'll run into trouble with the Chamber of Commerce over that idea. Bullets
are bad for business. Better to just cover it up and pretend it isn't
happening.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

snip

Golly. I swear, Ed, you are starting to sound just like Gunner...

Do you remember the one about the seven blind men and the elephant?
http://members.aol.com/Wildlifer/blindmen.htm

Well, Texas is bigger than the elephant.
Has a lot more parts too.


A bumper sticker sometimes seen around here is "Read my lips: No more
Texans!" Referring to presidents, of course.

I, for one, am in favor of letting Texans freely emigrate to the United
States. ducking, etc...

--
Ed Huntress




HEY NOW! THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS, FRIEND!

That guy ain't no Texan!

He's from New Haven, Connecticut.

He just calls Texas home to avoid paying Connecticut income tax.


He keeps saying "folks," as in "we have those terrorist folks on the run,
and they have no place to hide." There's hardly a place in the US where one
would say that with a straight face. Did he pick that up in Texas?

I don't know about those Texas transplants, but I still remember LBJ, too.
He was no winner either. He made the word "lips" into two syllables
("lee-yups"). It's a puzzle why we keep electing them.


Outta be a law, in fact...


Hey, if you don't control your own borders, that's what you get:
Transplanted New Englanders.

--
Ed Huntress




It's an act, Ed. Purest Politics.

If he were real Texas it would read'
"We gots them Terrerest fellers on da run na-ow"

Well, we was all a-watching the suthern border..
An them YAN-key fellers slipped in whilst nobody wuz a-lookin.

It's a dam shame what them fellers'd do, too.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

If ten or twelve a day ended up dead, the rest would get the hint
sooner, plus there would be a dozen fewer perps every day. That's
gotta count for something.

* Thirty-seven percent of jail inmates were convicted on a
new charge; 18% were convicted on prior charges following revocation
of probation or parole; 16% were both convicted of a prior charge and
awaiting trial on a new charge; and 28% were unconvicted.

Criminal History

* Fifty-three percent of jail inmates were on probation,
parole or pretrial release at the time of arrest.
* Four in 10 jail inmates had a current or past sentence for a
violent offense.
* Thirty-nine percent of jail inmates in 2002 had served 3 or
more prior sentences to incarceration or probation, down from 44% in
1996.

Recidivism

* Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in
1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious
misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4%
resentenced to prison for a new crime.
* The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly
4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
* Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were
rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for
homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
* Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be
rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68
percent of non-sex offenders.
* Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex
offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge
from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of
non-sex offenders.


Career Criminals....


Gunner

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

If ten or twelve a day ended up dead, the rest would get the hint
sooner, plus there would be a dozen fewer perps every day. That's
gotta count for something.


Following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry law in 1995 and
through 1997, the number of homicides had dropped 25% compared to a
national reduction of 16%. Furthermore, the number of assaults and
rapes were cut in half, which again far exceeded the national rate.
Overall, the Texas crime rates have dropped to the lowest point in
over 25 years following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry
law.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You
can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

--
Ed Huntress


Then we need to shoot more of them. The survivors will get the hint.


You'll run into trouble with the Chamber of Commerce over that idea. Bullets
are bad for business. Better to just cover it up and pretend it isn't
happening.

--
Ed Huntress



Now Ed, I'm never going to be able to sponsor you as an Honorary Texan
with that kind of attitude.

For penance, watch the first two seasons of "Dallas".

Oh, and drink Lone Star beer with that.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You
can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

If ten or twelve a day ended up dead, the rest would get the hint
sooner, plus there would be a dozen fewer perps every day. That's
gotta count for something.


Following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry law in 1995 and
through 1997, the number of homicides had dropped 25% compared to a
national reduction of 16%. Furthermore, the number of assaults and
rapes were cut in half, which again far exceeded the national rate.
Overall, the Texas crime rates have dropped to the lowest point in
over 25 years following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry
law.

Oh, boy, here we go. OK, Gunner, we'll take only one, for everyone's sake.
Let's take the first sentence.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...atebyState.cfm

The Texas concealed carry law took effect on January 1, 1996. Here are the
Texas murder rates for some years around that date:

1991 - 2652
1992 - 2239 (down 16% over previous year)
1993 - 2147 (-4%)
1994 - 2022 (-6%)
1995 - 1693 (-16%)
1996 - 1477 (-13%)
1997 - 1327 (-10%)
1998 - 1346 (+1%)

Note that the downward trend started in 1992, from the peak year of 1991.
The big year of decline actually was 1995 -- the year before the CCW law
took effect in Texas -- and that the trend inched up and then stabilized
after 1997 (you can see the longer trend at the BJS data site above). If
somebody here wants to do a regression analysis, it appears from the
year-over-year numbers that it will show *absolutely no effect* on the
murder rate due to the CCW law. The trend was set years before and it
followed a smooth curve right through the early CCW years.

This is the kind of thing about crime statistics that drives me crazy. No
doubt you got that information above from some highly partisan source that
didn't put the info into context -- intentionally, perhaps.

None of that "data" can be trusted, except from neutral sources. The closest
thing we have to a neutral source is the FBI UCR. If you take even five
minutes to check out those statements, you'll probably see that the rest of
it is just like this: so much baloney.

--
Ed Huntress

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You
can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

--
Ed Huntress


Then we need to shoot more of them. The survivors will get the hint.


You'll run into trouble with the Chamber of Commerce over that idea.
Bullets are bad for business. Better to just cover it up and pretend it
isn't happening.

--
Ed Huntress

Now Ed, I'm never going to be able to sponsor you as an Honorary Texan
with that kind of attitude.

For penance, watch the first two seasons of "Dallas".

Oh, and drink Lone Star beer with that.

I should have said it's bad for *bidness*. Then it would have looked more
Texan. I do have a Stetson, you know. I used to wear it pig hunting in
Arizona. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...


On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You
can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

--
Ed Huntress


Then we need to shoot more of them. The survivors will get the hint.


You'll run into trouble with the Chamber of Commerce over that idea.
Bullets are bad for business. Better to just cover it up and pretend it
isn't happening.

--
Ed Huntress

Now Ed, I'm never going to be able to sponsor you as an Honorary Texan
with that kind of attitude.

For penance, watch the first two seasons of "Dallas".

Oh, and drink Lone Star beer with that.


I should have said it's bad for *bidness*. Then it would have looked more
Texan. I do have a Stetson, you know. I used to wear it pig hunting in
Arizona. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Hey, waidaminut!

Idn't Conneticut up near yer part of the woods. Ed?

That cain't be morn'd a coupe-a counties over...

Hey, this is YOUR bozo!

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

snip


Hey, waidaminut!

Idn't Conneticut up near yer part of the woods. Ed?

That cain't be morn'd a coupe-a counties over...

Hey, this is YOUR bozo!

Nope. Long distances are much shorter here. Connecticut is on the other side
of the earth from here, actually. And Massachusetts is on another planet.

They have funny accents up there, unlike us Jerseyans. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In Texas, as in most of the country, only 13% of burglaries are ever
solved
("cleared"). That gives you some pretty questionable stats, if you're
trying
to figure out how many burglars were involved.

From FBI stats of a couple of years ago, the number of burglaries cleared
in
Dallas is somewhere around 3,990. The number of burglary arrests is just
under 1,700. So looking at it the way you suggest, you get about 2.4
burglaries cleared per arrest made. Projecting to Dallas's total number
of
burglaries (a little over 23,000), it would mean you have around 9,600
burglars.

The actual number of burglars, therefore, must fall somewhere between
1,700
and 9,600. Let's be generous and say that the 1,700 arrested committed
all
of the burglaries (I guess that would also mean you have no more
burglaries,
'cause all the burglars have been arrested g). If that unlikely event
were
true, the two burglars killed represent 0.001 of the burglars in Dallas.
If
the 9,600 is closer to the actual number, they represent 0.0002 of the
burglars in Dallas. If you can notice *either* of those differences, you
have very good detectors indeed.

The moral of the story is, there's no way to wiggle out of the fact that
your two dead burglars aren't going to help your crime situation. While
we
were talking 3 more probably took up burglary for a career.


Still two fewer than there would have been. That's a good thing in my
book.
Maybe you don't care -- you're in a safe place, so to hell with everyone
else,
eh?


This logic reminds me of coyotes. You shoot two coyotes and can say well,
there's two fewer of them than there would have been. Which is meaningless
and really incorrect in reality. Since the campaigns to destroy coyotes by
farmers and ranchers began the end result is a larger coyote population over
a larger area of the country than when they started. It's a lot like that
with crime too. Kill a few criminals and it doesn't do anything to solve or
reduce the problem.

I'm all for CCW licenses for everyone except the fools, which can be weeded
out in the licensing process. But killing people to protect property is a
completely different problem. As I said earlier killing someone over some
"stuff" is pretty uncivilized, caveman stuff. Or do you agree with O.J.?
Defending against assault or attacks is something else. It's like would I
kill someone for stealing a TV set? Clearly not because I'm not an inbread,
moronic, right winger. Would I kill someone for some scrap metal? Come off
it. How about 20 bucks? Okay to kill someone for that? The point is that
when some thought is applied it's easy to see that people shouldn't be
allowed to kill for property of little relative value just as they shouldn't
be allowed to kill to gain a few illicit dollars either. It's two sides of
the same coin. Rational people don't take killing lightly and don't approve
of it except under exceptional circumstances. Those who take the position
that killing for petty things don't really have a point worth defending. But
being dumb they never understand why and they don't grasp the value of human
life...unless it hasn't been born yet.

Hawke

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:21:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You
can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

If ten or twelve a day ended up dead, the rest would get the hint
sooner, plus there would be a dozen fewer perps every day. That's
gotta count for something.


Following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry law in 1995 and
through 1997, the number of homicides had dropped 25% compared to a
national reduction of 16%. Furthermore, the number of assaults and
rapes were cut in half, which again far exceeded the national rate.
Overall, the Texas crime rates have dropped to the lowest point in
over 25 years following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry
law.

Oh, boy, here we go. OK, Gunner, we'll take only one, for everyone's sake.
Let's take the first sentence.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...atebyState.cfm

The Texas concealed carry law took effect on January 1, 1996. Here are the
Texas murder rates for some years around that date:

1991 - 2652
1992 - 2239 (down 16% over previous year)
1993 - 2147 (-4%)
1994 - 2022 (-6%)
1995 - 1693 (-16%)
1996 - 1477 (-13%)
1997 - 1327 (-10%)
1998 - 1346 (+1%)

Note that the downward trend started in 1992, from the peak year of 1991.
The big year of decline actually was 1995 -- the year before the CCW law
took effect in Texas -- and that the trend inched up and then stabilized
after 1997 (you can see the longer trend at the BJS data site above). If
somebody here wants to do a regression analysis, it appears from the
year-over-year numbers that it will show *absolutely no effect* on the
murder rate due to the CCW law. The trend was set years before and it
followed a smooth curve right through the early CCW years.

This is the kind of thing about crime statistics that drives me crazy. No
doubt you got that information above from some highly partisan source that
didn't put the info into context -- intentionally, perhaps.

None of that "data" can be trusted, except from neutral sources. The closest
thing we have to a neutral source is the FBI UCR. If you take even five
minutes to check out those statements, you'll probably see that the rest of
it is just like this: so much baloney.


Keeps you busy doesnt it?

Idle hands do the devils work.....lol


Now that Ive got your attention..care to provide the same cites for
Florida after their CCW expansion?

Gunner

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:21:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You
can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

If ten or twelve a day ended up dead, the rest would get the hint
sooner, plus there would be a dozen fewer perps every day. That's
gotta count for something.


Following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry law in 1995 and
through 1997, the number of homicides had dropped 25% compared to a
national reduction of 16%. Furthermore, the number of assaults and
rapes were cut in half, which again far exceeded the national rate.
Overall, the Texas crime rates have dropped to the lowest point in
over 25 years following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry
law.

Oh, boy, here we go. OK, Gunner, we'll take only one, for everyone's sake.
Let's take the first sentence.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...atebyState.cfm

The Texas concealed carry law took effect on January 1, 1996. Here are the
Texas murder rates for some years around that date:

1991 - 2652
1992 - 2239 (down 16% over previous year)
1993 - 2147 (-4%)
1994 - 2022 (-6%)
1995 - 1693 (-16%)
1996 - 1477 (-13%)
1997 - 1327 (-10%)
1998 - 1346 (+1%)

Note that the downward trend started in 1992, from the peak year of 1991.
The big year of decline actually was 1995 -- the year before the CCW law
took effect in Texas -- and that the trend inched up and then stabilized
after 1997 (you can see the longer trend at the BJS data site above). If
somebody here wants to do a regression analysis, it appears from the
year-over-year numbers that it will show *absolutely no effect* on the
murder rate due to the CCW law. The trend was set years before and it
followed a smooth curve right through the early CCW years.

This is the kind of thing about crime statistics that drives me crazy. No
doubt you got that information above from some highly partisan source that
didn't put the info into context -- intentionally, perhaps.

None of that "data" can be trusted, except from neutral sources. The
closest
thing we have to a neutral source is the FBI UCR. If you take even five
minutes to check out those statements, you'll probably see that the rest
of
it is just like this: so much baloney.


Keeps you busy doesnt it?

Idle hands do the devils work.....lol


Now that Ive got your attention..care to provide the same cites for
Florida after their CCW expansion?

Gunner

Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Phooey. A simplistic single-variable analysis like that means nothing of the
sort, either way. All it means is that _if all other factors were equal_ then
the CCW law had 'x' effect (or failed to have 'y' effect).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Phooey. A simplistic single-variable analysis like that means nothing of
the
sort, either way. All it means is that _if all other factors were equal_
then
the CCW law had 'x' effect (or failed to have 'y' effect).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

No, Doug, on two counts. First, the claim we're testing is that a single
variable (enactment of a CCW law) had a measurable effect. The authors of
the quote Gunner posted made that claim.

If there were other, confounding events going on at the same time, the curve
would have short-term lumps or kinks in it. It does not. Furthermore, you
can test it further (I did) by overlaying it with national and/or regional
data, where there were no new CCW laws in the other states. If the CCW law
had an effect in Texas you would see a kink or lump in the curve and no
comparable lumps in the other states.

Second, if there were countereffects from other variables, they would
produce lumps, as well. The chance that one variable would *exactly
counterbalance* the CCW law, and thus produce the *illusion* of a smooth
curve, is so vanishingly small that you'd might as well forget it. One
effect would have to turn on just as the other one turned off, and to
exactly the same degree and with the same trend. Your chances of winning the
lottery are greater.

This is standard curve-testing stuff in economics. It's a first cut, and you
have to look closer before putting your money on a bet. But it's a very
effective way to see if something happened or it didn't. In this case,
nothing happened.

BTW, I ran the same data for Florida over the past 15 minutes, around the
year 1987, when they enacted their CCW law. But I'll leave that as an
exercise for anyone who's interested. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

snip

Hey, waidaminut!

Idn't Conneticut up near yer part of the woods. Ed?

That cain't be morn'd a coupe-a counties over...

Hey, this is YOUR bozo!


Nope. Long distances are much shorter here. Connecticut is on the other side
of the earth from here, actually. And Massachusetts is on another planet.

They have funny accents up there, unlike us Jerseyans. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



I dunno 'bout all that.

That whole plase ain't much bigger-n Dallas County.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:41:55 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Aren't you forgetting that the main thrust of the media campaigns are
made in the year _prior_ to the law getting passed?

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:41:55 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Aren't you forgetting that the main thrust of the media campaigns are
made in the year _prior_ to the law getting passed?

I'm not following you. Certainly interested parties are making their efforts
to get a law passed or not before it happens. But we're talking about trying
to measure what happened once the policy actually becomes law. Right?

--
Ed Huntress

On Oct 22, 7:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
If you read Randy's latest post, he says that they call the cops in NYC and
they respond quickly,

and if you read it well, you'd know I specifically implied I did not
believe the statistics, and am aware they are flawed.

I used to call in lots more crimes out on Chalk Hill Rd. I have a
stack of video tapes with 911 events on them. Shots fired, wrecks,
burning cars, drivers weaving all over the road, you name it. I
stopped calling in things that didn't leave marks on my building or
vehicles. What's the point? No one came out to take the report. So
statistically crime went down.

I don't believe the stats. Not for a minute. Call me a skeptic if you
wish.

Randy

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Phooey. A simplistic single-variable analysis like that means nothing of
the
sort, either way. All it means is that _if all other factors were equal_
then
the CCW law had 'x' effect (or failed to have 'y' effect).


No, Doug, on two counts. First, the claim we're testing is that a single
variable (enactment of a CCW law) had a measurable effect. The authors of
the quote Gunner posted made that claim.

Right, and without looking at other variables that may have influenced the
outcome one direction or the other, it's not possible to determine whether it
did or did not have the claimed effect.

If there were other, confounding events going on at the same time, the curve
would have short-term lumps or kinks in it.

Nonsense. Without knowing what other events might have been going on at the
same time, you have no way to know what effect they would have on the shape of
the curve.

It does not. Furthermore, you
can test it further (I did) by overlaying it with national and/or regional
data, where there were no new CCW laws in the other states. If the CCW law
had an effect in Texas you would see a kink or lump in the curve and no
comparable lumps in the other states.

What about other factors specific to Texas, or more prominent in Texas than
elsewhere? I can imagine that illegal immigration, for example, may have had a
disproportionate effect in Texas compared to, say, Oklahoma.

Second, if there were countereffects from other variables, they would
produce lumps, as well.

Without knowing what they were, you don't know what effect they would have.

The chance that one variable would *exactly
counterbalance* the CCW law, and thus produce the *illusion* of a smooth
curve, is so vanishingly small that you'd might as well forget it. One
effect would have to turn on just as the other one turned off, and to
exactly the same degree and with the same trend. Your chances of winning the
lottery are greater.

Sure, but just how smooth is that curve, anyway?

This is standard curve-testing stuff in economics. It's a first cut, and you
have to look closer before putting your money on a bet. But it's a very
effective way to see if something happened or it didn't. In this case,
nothing happened.

That conclusion may be correct -- but I don't agree that it's supported by the
(slim) data provided.

BTW, I ran the same data for Florida over the past 15 minutes, around the
year 1987, when they enacted their CCW law. But I'll leave that as an
exercise for anyone who's interested. d8-)


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"RMDumse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 22, 7:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
If you read Randy's latest post, he says that they call the cops in NYC
and
they respond quickly,

and if you read it well, you'd know I specifically implied I did not
believe the statistics, and am aware they are flawed.

Yeah, but did you believe your own statement, or was that tongue-in-cheek?


I used to call in lots more crimes out on Chalk Hill Rd. I have a
stack of video tapes with 911 events on them. Shots fired, wrecks,
burning cars, drivers weaving all over the road, you name it. I
stopped calling in things that didn't leave marks on my building or
vehicles. What's the point? No one came out to take the report. So
statistically crime went down.

I don't believe the stats. Not for a minute. Call me a skeptic if you
wish.

My God. How can you live in a place like that? How about a nice house on the
Jersey Shore? d8-)

You're not the only one who says that Dallas's crime is seriously
underreported. If they reported it accurately, it appears, it would sound
like a suburb of Hell.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:41:55 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:21:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You
can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

If ten or twelve a day ended up dead, the rest would get the hint
sooner, plus there would be a dozen fewer perps every day. That's
gotta count for something.


Following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry law in 1995 and
through 1997, the number of homicides had dropped 25% compared to a
national reduction of 16%. Furthermore, the number of assaults and
rapes were cut in half, which again far exceeded the national rate.
Overall, the Texas crime rates have dropped to the lowest point in
over 25 years following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry
law.

Oh, boy, here we go. OK, Gunner, we'll take only one, for everyone's sake.
Let's take the first sentence.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...atebyState.cfm

The Texas concealed carry law took effect on January 1, 1996. Here are the
Texas murder rates for some years around that date:

1991 - 2652
1992 - 2239 (down 16% over previous year)
1993 - 2147 (-4%)
1994 - 2022 (-6%)
1995 - 1693 (-16%)
1996 - 1477 (-13%)
1997 - 1327 (-10%)
1998 - 1346 (+1%)

Note that the downward trend started in 1992, from the peak year of 1991.
The big year of decline actually was 1995 -- the year before the CCW law
took effect in Texas -- and that the trend inched up and then stabilized
after 1997 (you can see the longer trend at the BJS data site above). If
somebody here wants to do a regression analysis, it appears from the
year-over-year numbers that it will show *absolutely no effect* on the
murder rate due to the CCW law. The trend was set years before and it
followed a smooth curve right through the early CCW years.

This is the kind of thing about crime statistics that drives me crazy. No
doubt you got that information above from some highly partisan source that
didn't put the info into context -- intentionally, perhaps.

None of that "data" can be trusted, except from neutral sources. The
closest
thing we have to a neutral source is the FBI UCR. If you take even five
minutes to check out those statements, you'll probably see that the rest
of
it is just like this: so much baloney.


Keeps you busy doesnt it?

Idle hands do the devils work.....lol


Now that Ive got your attention..care to provide the same cites for
Florida after their CCW expansion?

Gunner

Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Oddly enough..I dont have a clue on how to use a spreadsheet. Never
learned.

Gunner

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know
where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do
with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Phooey. A simplistic single-variable analysis like that means nothing of
the
sort, either way. All it means is that _if all other factors were equal_
then
the CCW law had 'x' effect (or failed to have 'y' effect).


No, Doug, on two counts. First, the claim we're testing is that a single
variable (enactment of a CCW law) had a measurable effect. The authors of
the quote Gunner posted made that claim.

Right, and without looking at other variables that may have influenced the
outcome one direction or the other, it's not possible to determine whether
it
did or did not have the claimed effect.

If there were other, confounding events going on at the same time, the
curve
would have short-term lumps or kinks in it.

Nonsense. Without knowing what other events might have been going on at
the
same time, you have no way to know what effect they would have on the
shape of
the curve.

Yeah, you can if there is no kink or bump in the curve.

I'll make one brief attempt to explain this. If a change occurred in the
crime rate at the time the CCW law went into effect, or within the time that
CCW permit issuances ramped up sharply (it really happened fast in Texas),
you would see an effect on the curve. It wouldn't be smooth if the jump in
concealed carry actually had an effect. You would see a kink that shifted
the rate up or down, or you would see a bump that indicated a short-term
effect that then regressed back to the mean.

You would see that something happened but you would not be able to tell at
that point what actually happened. It could be the CCW, or some other new
law that was passed at the same time, or a change in the way crimes were
reported, or anything else.

That's not what happened here. What happened is much simpler to analyze: the
curve continued smoothly with no kinks or bumps. Now, think about what that
would require if some other factor was involved that disguised some hidden
effect from the CCW law. It would mean that the other influence had to occur
at the same time as the influence from the CCW law; it would have to have
influenced the data in the opposite direction to the CCW law; and it would
have had to have the *same initial magnitude* as the effect from the CCW law
and the *rate* of its influence would have had to be exactly tangent to the
curve. Otherwise, you would see a bump or a kink.

And that's how that kind of curve analysis is used. If there is a kink or a
bump, you have a big job ahead of you figuring out what happened, including
looking at other possible influences on the data. But if the curve is
smooth, you don't have to do that. The chances that other influences were
involved is impossibly small because of all the characteristics it would
need to have to counterbalance the effect of the CCW law.

The short version is, if there is a change in the curve of data, you can't
immediately tell what caused it. If there is no change in the curve of the
data, you can be as sure as anything in the field of analysis that the event
had no effect.

If that isn't an acceptable explanation, I give up on trying.


It does not. Furthermore, you
can test it further (I did) by overlaying it with national and/or regional
data, where there were no new CCW laws in the other states. If the CCW law
had an effect in Texas you would see a kink or lump in the curve and no
comparable lumps in the other states.

What about other factors specific to Texas, or more prominent in Texas
than
elsewhere? I can imagine that illegal immigration, for example, may have
had a
disproportionate effect in Texas compared to, say, Oklahoma.

Sure. But it didn't happen all of a sudden, like the CCW law going into
effect and Texans going out in large numbers and getting permits. Those
effects you bring up could change the number of crimes committed over time,
and they thus could cause the curve to change direction. But it would still
be a smooth curve -- unless the illegal immigrants all decided to stop
committing crimes at the same time.

Second, if there were countereffects from other variables, they would
produce lumps, as well.

Without knowing what they were, you don't know what effect they would
have.

You don't have to know *what* the effect is. But if they're effects that
have an influence of some kind on the homicide rate, you'd see some change.
If they were noticeable lumps in the data, you'd know it was an abrupt
change. A sharp change tells you something had *some* effect. Up or down
doesn't matter if all you're doing is looking for some kind of sharp change.


The chance that one variable would *exactly
counterbalance* the CCW law, and thus produce the *illusion* of a smooth
curve, is so vanishingly small that you'd might as well forget it. One
effect would have to turn on just as the other one turned off, and to
exactly the same degree and with the same trend. Your chances of winning
the
lottery are greater.

Sure, but just how smooth is that curve, anyway?

Plug it into Excel and see what you can detect over the year or two after
the CCW law went into effect. Lay it up against the national average and see
what appears.


This is standard curve-testing stuff in economics. It's a first cut, and
you
have to look closer before putting your money on a bet. But it's a very
effective way to see if something happened or it didn't. In this case,
nothing happened.

That conclusion may be correct -- but I don't agree that it's supported by
the
(slim) data provided.

If there were an effect from the CCW law, it would show. It isn't enough
data to tell you a lot about it, but the presence of a positive or a
negative effect would stick out like a sore thumb.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:41:55 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

snip

Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Oddly enough..I dont have a clue on how to use a spreadsheet. Never
learned.

Gunner

OK then, here's the very short take on Florida: There is a little bump soon
after the CCW law was passed, but the trendline regresses to the mean in a
couple of years. Whether the *rate* regresses back to the original values of
the trend, I can't tell without making the curves and analyzing it further.
I don't have that much time.

Because Florida has a kink in the curve, it's completely different from
Texas. Now it's not simple. I won't go into it, but the fact is it would
require quite a lot of picking apart to get a good handle on what actually
happened. It may, in fact, be impossible to really get a handle on it, but
it's probably manageable.

Regarding using a spreadsheet, you should take the time to learn the basics,
given the way you report data. g If you use Excel or one of the others
that draw graphical charts, you can instantly get a good picture of many
things that just don't show up from looking at numbers. I just cut and paste
from online databases, or download their spreadsheets when they're
available, and let Excel do the work. Microsoft has a pretty good free
tutorial online.

--
Ed Huntress