Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


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

Eh, I think I misread a couple of things you were saying. Sorry about that.
Let's clean them up quickly:


"RMDumse" wrote in message
oups.com...

To the
degree they [meaning good guys, which I mistook] aren't there, is a
measure of how welcome the bad guys
feel, and it determines in the long run if the community stays safe...
If you aren't the guy making the community safe, your benefiting from
his solemn resolution.


Bad guys don't make "solemn resolutions," except in dime-store novels.


I see now you meant "good guys" make the solemn resolutions. Again, if that
were true, you wouldn't need to be armed, and I would. Since the opposite
appears to be true, based on actual crimes committed, there is something
wrong with your theory, eh?


In moving, community to be safe, you're running
to him for protection. As far as those "guys" having a big "self
image" thing going on, you probably don't even know they're there. You
don't get to see what is in their souls until you witness it in
action, if you ever do. They don't fit stereotypes.


I don't need his protection. What's far better for me and my family is to be
in a place where we don't have enough violent crime to worry about. That's
what we have, and what you apparently don't. That's your choice.

'Hope that clears things up.

--
Ed Huntress


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

On Oct 20, 3:20 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:...
I see now you meant "good guys" make the solemn resolutions. Again, if that
were true, you wouldn't need to be armed, and I would. Since the opposite
appears to be true, based on actual crimes committed, there is something
wrong with your theory, eh?


Okay, Ed, I see you're trying. Thank you for the corrections. But we
are still not at concensus. If we want to agree to disagree, I can
live with that.

But assuming we're talking because we're trying to understand each
other, I will try to make my point which is missed above.

If someone is a good guy and has solemn resolution, he takes a stand
and some things just aren't going to go down without a response, and
if that person is at all effective, then that someone is armed.

The issue is not whether you should, or I should. The issue is not
whether you do, or I do. My point is we both need to be armed to
secure our neighborhoods, or rely on someone else who actually is. If
not you, you can be sure someone in your neighborhood is armed. If you
choose not to be armed, and you live in a good neighborhood, then
someone else has to take up your slack, and they're the one you need
to thank for your safe neighborhood.

Alfred North Whithead had this little phrase he used to describe
people who don't get the complex issues. He said they labor under "the
fallacy of misplaced concreteness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...d_concreteness

Here's what I think is overlooked in your argument. When it comes to
the safety of a neighborhood, Its not you, and its not the
neighborhood, its not dead end streets, and its not (exactly) looking
for people who look out of place. It certainly isn't that it's
difficult to buy even pellets. Ultimately, it comes down to someone is
armed and willing to use those arms. Guess where you are, its the
police, and their honest, brave, and actually think like the rest of
the community. Where I am, it's difficult to get the police to come
out, so any order that exists there is from people who are willing to
arm themselves and provide for the security of themselves and their
neighbors. From the bad guys it's the knowledge that there are a few
of them out there, so they'd better keep it down or go somewhere
else.

I don't need his protection. What's far better for me and my family is to be
in a place where we don't have enough violent crime to worry about. That's
what we have, and what you apparently don't.


I take it, by extending your reasoning (admittedly, as best I can
understand, base on what I understand of what you've told me), you
don't think our military is necessary for our safety either? You can
always just move to somewhere that's free and safe and any kind of
defense doesn't figure into it? Is that the essence of your argument?
If so, yes, that clears things up. Possibly it meansthat bumper
sticker, "If you can read this thank a teacher, and if you can read
this in English, thank a vet", doesn't make any sense either?

In any case, Ed, I'd like to thank you for carrying on a civil
conversation about ideas. You show a great deal of character and
restraint for doing so, rather than slipping to flame. For that, I
hats off to you.

Randy

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


"RMDumse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 20, 3:20 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:...
I see now you meant "good guys" make the solemn resolutions. Again, if
that
were true, you wouldn't need to be armed, and I would. Since the opposite
appears to be true, based on actual crimes committed, there is something
wrong with your theory, eh?


Okay, Ed, I see you're trying. Thank you for the corrections. But we
are still not at concensus. If we want to agree to disagree, I can
live with that.

But assuming we're talking because we're trying to understand each
other, I will try to make my point which is missed above.

If someone is a good guy and has solemn resolution, he takes a stand
and some things just aren't going to go down without a response, and
if that person is at all effective, then that someone is armed.

The issue is not whether you should, or I should. The issue is not
whether you do, or I do. My point is we both need to be armed to
secure our neighborhoods, or rely on someone else who actually is. If
not you, you can be sure someone in your neighborhood is armed. If you
choose not to be armed, and you live in a good neighborhood, then
someone else has to take up your slack, and they're the one you need
to thank for your safe neighborhood.


I suspect we will disagree, Randy, and this probably is the core of our
disagreement. I don't want to belabor my thinking or background on this
issue, but maybe I should point out that I've owned guns since 1959; joined
NRA in 1961; was a rifle instructor for 15 years, certified by NRA and the
state of New York; was a range officer in the (then) DCM program; was an
editorialist opposing NJ's "assault weapons" bans in the late '80s and early
'90s; was an unpaid lobbyist in Trenton for the NJ affiliate of NRA; and
presented testimony opposing the bans in the NJ state Senate. There is more,
but that should give you the idea.

After much research and thought about it, my opinion is that the most
important thing that will keep gun rights from going away is to be
absolutely pragmatic about it, relying on evidence instead of theories,
being sensitive to the fears, rational and irrational, of ordinary citizens,
and keeping in mind that our only strength lies in having popular agreement
for the positions we take. Anything else is destructive to the end. Thus,
when the evidence is that there is no relationship between being armed to
the teeth and reducing crime in a neighborhood, the evidence-based, rational
position is that individuals may choose to arm themselves but making a
morality play of it by claiming your "solemn resolution" is making the rest
of us safe is going to be received as evidence that a lot of gunowners are
crackpots who live in a B-movie that's running in their heads. Sorry, but
that's the way most people will see it, and it's just too easy to pull up
evidence that there's no factual support for the idea that having lots of
guns around makes you any safer. A few anecdotes will not make your case.
Your enemies will make mincemeat of the proposition. Most people have a good
gut feeling for what is true in this matter and what is not. My town versus
your town, of which there are thousands of parallel examples, will make the
point.

That's not to disparage your principles; it is to say that trying to promote
them as abstract ideas justifying being heavily armed, in conflict with the
evidence that is all around us, reinforces the idea that our heads are not
screwed on quite tight. No amount of philosophical arguing from your
position will change that. And that is the key to the troubles we've had in
recent years over gun ownership in the US: we've gone over the top with
philosophical arguments that just don't connect with what most people see in
the world around them.

Add to that the fact that millions of ordinary citizens have dropped out of
the shooting sports and active gun ownership, and that a lot of crackpots
and emotionally challenged folks have *not* dropped out (they were always
there, but the percentage they make up is rising, like the guys at my local
range with the digger hats who like to shoot TEC-9s), and you have a
situation in which we are under scrutiny all the time. You may be totally
trustworthy, but a lot of your fellow gun owners are evidentially of
questionable stability. They pout about being denied flash suppressors; they
go into fits like teenage girls because they can't have their Black Talons
and bayonet lugs. They're so transparently obsessive and self-centered that
the average citizen loses trust in the idea that gun owners should be
trusted. They wonder what's really on those peoples' minds, after all. And
gun ownership, especially the promotion of being heavily armed for
self-defense, is something that goes down well in the population at large
only when the people doing the promoting are perceived as being steady as a
rock, level headed, cool and calm, mature, and sensitive to the fears and
concerns of others.

Thus I'm not inclined to accept your arguments. They're far-out theory,
which you would be unable to demonstrate, if we were to get into a
statistical debate, is connected to the evidence as the real world presents
it to us. They are counterproductive. In my experience, lobbying and writing
editorials, arguing with legislators and anti-gun politicians (not to
mention a hellbender I got into with the then-Communications Director of
HCI, back in 1992), there is no way you can posture behind theories and
philosophies and win the confidence of the public at large. And that is
exactly what I have set myself to do, for nearly two decades now.


Alfred North Whithead had this little phrase he used to describe
people who don't get the complex issues. He said they labor under "the
fallacy of misplaced concreteness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...d_concreteness


Good for Al. Nobody cares about philosophy when the issue is being shot at.


Here's what I think is overlooked in your argument. When it comes to
the safety of a neighborhood, Its not you, and its not the
neighborhood, its not dead end streets, and its not (exactly) looking
for people who look out of place. It certainly isn't that it's
difficult to buy even pellets. Ultimately, it comes down to someone is
armed and willing to use those arms.


But there is no one like that around here. You're living a fantasy that
doesn't exist, because the evidence is that we're safer here than in most
places, without those armed people around.

Guess where you are, its the
police, and their honest, brave, and actually think like the rest of
the community.


I think the key issue is that they have the support of the community. They
feel close to the community, and vice versa.

Where I am, it's difficult to get the police to come
out, so any order that exists there is from people who are willing to
arm themselves and provide for the security of themselves and their
neighbors.


And that's what we were arguing about in the first place. It's too easy for
one to move in this country, and staying in a threatening
situation --especially when you had a fortune -- is not the rational or
responsible response to the threat.

From the bad guys it's the knowledge that there are a few
of them out there, so they'd better keep it down or go somewhere
else.


Baloney. It doesn't work in the real world. Spend a few days with the FBI's
Uniform Crime Reports. I've spent literally hundreds of hours with them,
building cases to write editorials. The facts do not support your
proposition. Again, it's all in your head.


I don't need his protection. What's far better for me and my family is to
be
in a place where we don't have enough violent crime to worry about.
That's
what we have, and what you apparently don't.


I take it, by extending your reasoning (admittedly, as best I can
understand, base on what I understand of what you've told me), you
don't think our military is necessary for our safety either?


That has nothing to do with anything. "Extending one's reasoning" often is a
cover for reducing the argument to the absurd, which usually leads you to a
cockeyed conclusion. That's the trap that runs ideologues into the ditch,
Randy. Just stick to the facts as they are; there's plenty of evidence to
clarify the real situation.

The criminals aren't German tankers, and you guys aren't the 82nd Airborne.
d8-)

You can always just move to somewhere that's free and safe and any kind of
defense doesn't figure into it? Is that the essence of your argument?


We've been here for 29 years. We don't exactly have to keep moving around to
find safe places. And that was the result of using our heads in the first
place, when we decided where to live. We could have had much a bigger house
6 miles away, but this was the best town.

If so, yes, that clears things up. Possibly it meansthat bumper
sticker, "If you can read this thank a teacher, and if you can read
this in English, thank a vet", doesn't make any sense either?


The bigger question is, what in the heck does that have to do with what
we're talking about?


In any case, Ed, I'd like to thank you for carrying on a civil
conversation about ideas. You show a great deal of character and
restraint for doing so, rather than slipping to flame. For that, I
hats off to you.

Randy


OK, I try not to flame unless I'm flamed. d8-)

This is a serious conversation but it's 'way too much for sensible
discussions online. I've had most of it in person as well as online and the
important fact is that the real deciding issues are ones that go on under
the radar, relating more to trust than to philosophy. My concern is, as it
has been for years, that most gun owners have little sensitivity to what
arguments and discussions build and break trust with ordinary people who are
skeptical to begin with. In many cases, they don't even seem to care.

--
Ed Huntress


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

On Oct 20, 8:34 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Nobody cares about philosophy when the issue is being shot at.


Issue or fact? Ed, have you ever been shot at?

Which one of us is talking idle theory and B-movies about red neck
Bubba and his deer rifle, and which one experience?

After I swept up the 45 lbs of broken glass from my front door and
shipped it to the mayor of Dallas, I wrote another letter to the
governer. He wrote back saying he was sending a TX ranger out. I was
so excited I was beside myself. I'd heard such stories. He came to my
office, sat across from me, and basically plaid dumb, saying he didn't
know of anything he could do. I told him why didn't he go down to the
Dallas evidence locker and get the video tape I had of the Jeep
pulling up in front of my place and the four guys getting out and
shooting up my door? (Different incident.) He could use video scan
equipment to pull off the license plate, and go have a talk with those
boys, ask them not to do it again?

When he snorted "Welll I wouldn't begin to know where to get any
equipment like that!" I lost my cool. I yelled at him, "Have you ever
been in a gun fight?" As he begin to sputter "Well no...I haven't" I
yelled "It changes your attitude!" He said, "Well, ah, yes Mr. Dumse,
from talkin' with those that have, ah, I hear that it does..." So the
trip out from the Ranger was as useless as anything. Very
disappointing.

No, no, your right, I wasn't 82 Airborne.

I was Top Gun Sixth Fleet in our surface navy. I was Gunnery Officer.
I was Ship's Self Defense Force Officer. I was actually the guy who
carried the launch keys to the nukes at times. I was head of the
nuclear response force, and once called, they could not stand down
from their stations until I personally appeared to them with side arm
held up in one hand, and live ammunition held up in the other, alone,
and not under any sign of duress. (Armed to the teeth as it were.)

Now it has been hard to tell from your response, if you think the
military should be armed, or if our pressence out there in the world
had anything to do with your quite, safe, little town being quite and
safe. I'm saying it does. I'm also saying the pillars of the community
are backed by force of arms, wether it is visible or not. To me, the
NRA's approach is that of appologist, and I have this idea that rights
are rights, and not negotiable without a change in the Constitution.

And you may not understand it or agree, but I'm glad James Walton is
my neighbor for the past 20 years. I couldn't ask for a better one.

Randy

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


"RMDumse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 20, 8:34 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Nobody cares about philosophy when the issue is being shot at.


Issue or fact? Ed, have you ever been shot at?

Which one of us is talking idle theory and B-movies about red neck
Bubba and his deer rifle, and which one experience?

After I swept up the 45 lbs of broken glass from my front door and
shipped it to the mayor of Dallas, I wrote another letter to the
governer. He wrote back saying he was sending a TX ranger out. I was
so excited I was beside myself. I'd heard such stories. He came to my
office, sat across from me, and basically plaid dumb, saying he didn't
know of anything he could do. I told him why didn't he go down to the
Dallas evidence locker and get the video tape I had of the Jeep
pulling up in front of my place and the four guys getting out and
shooting up my door? (Different incident.) He could use video scan
equipment to pull off the license plate, and go have a talk with those
boys, ask them not to do it again?


And there's proof of my point, Randy. You're armed, your friend is armed,
but you had to sweep 45 lb. of broken glass from your front door. I didn't.

In other words, your being armed didn't help you. And you still feel you
have to be armed. Eventually, I hope, it will sink in: being armed isn't the
solution. Living in a place that's safer for your family is the solution.
You're still at high risk, apparently, despite your principles and your
loaded guns.


When he snorted "Welll I wouldn't begin to know where to get any
equipment like that!" I lost my cool. I yelled at him, "Have you ever
been in a gun fight?" As he begin to sputter "Well no...I haven't" I
yelled "It changes your attitude!" He said, "Well, ah, yes Mr. Dumse,
from talkin' with those that have, ah, I hear that it does..." So the
trip out from the Ranger was as useless as anything. Very
disappointing.

No, no, your right, I wasn't 82 Airborne.

I was Top Gun Sixth Fleet in our surface navy.


That's great, and I'm glad you were. It appears you've mentally transferred
your navy experience to living among gang-bangers, as if there is some
parallel. There is no parallel. Your navy experience would not help much if
you found yourself in an urban insurgency, to extend the war analogy. But
there is no war analogy. You aren't even facing political insurgents. You're
facing opportunistic criminals. And if you're in a neighborhood that
provides the environment they like and the opportunities they want, they'll
keep coming, no matter how many guns you have. They don't know if you're
armed or not, and most of them probably don't care. They wouldn't understand
your assumption that they are rational, and they could care less.


Now it has been hard to tell from your response, if you think the
military should be armed, or if our pressence out there in the world
had anything to do with your quite, safe, little town being quite and
safe. I'm saying it does.


So would I. But that has nothing to do with gang-bangers. They don't have
generals. They don't have any sense. They just have a desire for something
you have.

I'm also saying the pillars of the community
are backed by force of arms, wether it is visible or not. To me, the
NRA's approach is that of appologist, and I have this idea that rights
are rights, and not negotiable without a change in the Constitution.

And you may not understand it or agree, but I'm glad James Walton is
my neighbor for the past 20 years. I couldn't ask for a better one.


That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's there?
No speculation now. Just facts, please.

--
Ed Huntress




  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's there?


Two fewer thieves in the world because of him, obviously. Works for me.



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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


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

That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's
there?


Two fewer thieves in the world because of him, obviously. Works for me.


And that's all you're going to get out of it, Doug, a little thrill. Because
killing two burglars in a city that had 21,653 of them last year tells us
that all that will happen is that some gun-totin' folks who live in
fantasyland will get their rocks off when they watch the evening news.

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.

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?

--
Ed Huntress


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's
there?


Two fewer thieves in the world because of him, obviously. Works for me.



And that's all you're going to get out of it, Doug, a little thrill. Because
killing two burglars in a city that had 21,653 of them last year tells us
that all that will happen is that some gun-totin' folks who live in
fantasyland will get their rocks off when they watch the evening news.

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.

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?

--
Ed Huntress




Aw, come on Ed.

Half of New York City lives in Dallas now.

What can you expect???


Richard
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to
call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's
there?

Two fewer thieves in the world because of him, obviously. Works for me.



And that's all you're going to get out of it, Doug, a little thrill.
Because killing two burglars in a city that had 21,653 of them last year
tells us that all that will happen is that some gun-totin' folks who live
in fantasyland will get their rocks off when they watch the evening news.

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.

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?

--
Ed Huntress



Aw, come on Ed.

Half of New York City lives in Dallas now.

What can you expect???


Jeez. Well, based on the crime statistics for both cities, the NYC residents
probably have reduced Dallas's crime rate by quite a bit. It would be like
one of Dick Cheney's hunting preserves without them. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

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

That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's
there?


Two fewer thieves in the world because of him, obviously. Works for me.


And that's all you're going to get out of it, Doug, a little thrill. Because
killing two burglars in a city that had 21,653 of them last year tells us
that all that will happen is that some gun-totin' folks who live in
fantasyland will get their rocks off when they watch the evening news.


[snip]

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?


Speaking of an inconvenient truth... was that 21,653 burglars? Or 21,653
burglarIES? If, as I imagine, it's really the latter, it's highly doubtful
that the actual number of burglars in Dallas is anywhere near that high -- and
quite possibly low enough that removing just two of them could make a
noticeable difference.

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

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


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


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

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

That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to
call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's
there?

Two fewer thieves in the world because of him, obviously. Works for me.


And that's all you're going to get out of it, Doug, a little thrill.
Because
killing two burglars in a city that had 21,653 of them last year tells us
that all that will happen is that some gun-totin' folks who live in
fantasyland will get their rocks off when they watch the evening news.


[snip]

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?


Speaking of an inconvenient truth... was that 21,653 burglars? Or 21,653
burglarIES? If, as I imagine, it's really the latter, it's highly doubtful
that the actual number of burglars in Dallas is anywhere near that high --
and
quite possibly low enough that removing just two of them could make a
noticeable difference.


That's burglaries, reported and recorded. Yeah, Doug. I'm sure removing
those two will make a noticeable difference. g Keep a sharp eye on the
Dallas burglary rate. With those two guys out of the picture, you'll
doubtless see a big drop in the numbers....[music up, theme to "The Twilight
Zone"...]

--
Ed Huntress


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

On Oct 21, 4:47 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?


Or an convenient lie.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.37a0d0d.html

"Until this week, it seemed likely that Dallas would remain No. 1. But
the Police Department has discovered it hasn't been following FBI
guidelines, resulting in the overreporting of certain crimes.

"In some cases, the rules allow multiple crimes to be reported as a
single act. For example, 10 car break-ins committed by the same
burglar within a few minutes of one another count as one criminal act.
Dallas was reporting 10 crimes."

Or maybe not. It could be just NYC is better at covering up its
statistics than Dallas is. However, I know for a fact Dallas tries to
do the same, at least in one case I've already sighted.

Randy

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


"RMDumse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 21, 4:47 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?


Or an convenient lie.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.37a0d0d.html

"Until this week, it seemed likely that Dallas would remain No. 1. But
the Police Department has discovered it hasn't been following FBI
guidelines, resulting in the overreporting of certain crimes.

"In some cases, the rules allow multiple crimes to be reported as a
single act. For example, 10 car break-ins committed by the same
burglar within a few minutes of one another count as one criminal act.
Dallas was reporting 10 crimes."

Or maybe not. It could be just NYC is better at covering up its
statistics than Dallas is. However, I know for a fact Dallas tries to
do the same, at least in one case I've already sighted.

Randy


You stopped your "research" too soon, Randy:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...e.2ee1bc8.html

===============================================

"Revised crime stats won't help Dallas' highest ranking"

"Police grouping some multiple crimes, but improved numbers aren't enough"

05:30 AM CDT on Thursday, August 16, 2007
By TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News

Recent changes in the way Dallas reports crime probably won't be enough to
knock the city from its perch as the most crime-ridden major city in
America, police officials said Wednesday.

Archive: Dallas has worst crime in nation
Last month, Dallas police said they had been incorrectly reporting some
crimes for years to the FBI. The guidelines allow multiple crimes to be
reported as a single criminal act when reporting some property crimes, and
Dallas hadn't been consistently using the rule.

In initial reviews, police re-examined vehicle burglaries, robberies,
shoplifting and other thefts from January through June, which led the Police
Department to reduce the number of those offenses by 1,723.

Extrapolating that number over a whole year would mean theoretically cutting
about 3,400 offenses - far less than the almost 14,000 offenses that would
have had to have been eliminated in 2006 to avoid being ranked No. 1 in
crime among cities with more than 1 million residents.

===============================================

As I said before, I've spent a lot of hours with the FBI UCR. I also read
both of those stories before posting my earlier comments. Don't be so quick
to call something a "lie" until you've done your homework. And keep in mind
that the figure I quoted is *actual reported crimes*, as I said. There was
no "mistake" in the Dallas Police Department's original reporting. The
mistake was in following the UCR guidelines for ganging up crimes reported.
And it turned out to be an inconsequential mistake.

The theory you were posing before, that the "Great Men" are protecting our
neighborhoods with guns, isn't holding up upon close examination, is it? New
York City, with 1/6 of your burglary rate, has a very low percentage of gun
owners -- just owning a gun there at all requires an onerous process. And if
you really do your homework you'll find that the pattern holds: as I said,
there is no relationship between crime rates and gun ownership in the United
States. I've done the research, in real depth, and I assure you that you
will not find a relationship if you do the study honestly. The anecdotes we
hear from the NRA et al. are trivial compared to the real statistics. A
great deal of the fantasy surrounding your theory is of a nature similar to
the suggestion made by Doug, that killing two burglars can have a
"significant effect" on the crime statistics in a city reporting over 21,000
total burglaries. I'll be generous and say it's the result of careless
research and wishful thinking.

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.

--
Ed Huntress


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

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

Ed Huntress wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to
call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's
there?

Two fewer thieves in the world because of him, obviously. Works for me.


And that's all you're going to get out of it, Doug, a little thrill.
Because killing two burglars in a city that had 21,653 of them last year
tells us that all that will happen is that some gun-totin' folks who live
in fantasyland will get their rocks off when they watch the evening news.

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.

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?

--
Ed Huntress



Aw, come on Ed.

Half of New York City lives in Dallas now.

What can you expect???



Jeez. Well, based on the crime statistics for both cities, the NYC residents
probably have reduced Dallas's crime rate by quite a bit. It would be like
one of Dick Cheney's hunting preserves without them. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



LoL!

Good one Ed!
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

RMDumse wrote:

On Oct 21, 4:47 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?



Or an convenient lie.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.37a0d0d.html

"Until this week, it seemed likely that Dallas would remain No. 1. But
the Police Department has discovered it hasn't been following FBI
guidelines, resulting in the overreporting of certain crimes.

"In some cases, the rules allow multiple crimes to be reported as a
single act. For example, 10 car break-ins committed by the same
burglar within a few minutes of one another count as one criminal act.
Dallas was reporting 10 crimes."

Or maybe not. It could be just NYC is better at covering up its
statistics than Dallas is. However, I know for a fact Dallas tries to
do the same, at least in one case I've already sighted.

Randy


Dunno where these numbers came from, so I'll offer up some more...

Dallas Crime stats:
http://www.ci.dallas.tx.us/dpd/stat_decision.htm
http://dallas.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

MISreporting statistics???
It's a real problem.
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/HRWG/PDF/hrwg03.pdf



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

Ed Huntress wrote:

You stopped your "research" too soon, Randy:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...e.2ee1bc8.html

===============================================


"It isn't just a Dallas thing"...

The very last line in the oc.
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


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

You stopped your "research" too soon, Randy:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...e.2ee1bc8.html

===============================================


"It isn't just a Dallas thing"...

The very last line in the oc.


If you note the context, Dr. Taylor's remark refers to other Texas cities,
not to comparisons of total crimes between Texas and other states. What he's
suggesting by that is anybody's guess.

And the man is full of nonsense to begin with. He says "Dallas is not near
as violent, near as dangerous as people think it is," Dr. Taylor said. "It's
a very safe major city." You only have to spend ten minutes with the UCR --
or better yet, look at about a decade's worth of UCR statistics -- to
realize he's in cloud-cuckooland. Dallas is consistently one of the most
crime-ridden cities in the US. For the past nine years it's ranked #1, and
it still ranks #1 AFTER correcting for the reporting method.

The gaps are huge. Compare the numbers we've been talking about here,
between NYC and Dallas for burglaries. No amount of mis-reporting is going
to change those qualitative relationships.

If you spend time with the people responsible in various states for
reporting UCR figures to the FBI (I have, in person and in phone
interviews), you quickly see where the reporting inconsistencies lie.
They're systematic, measurable, and usually easy to correct. Since the Brady
Bill was enacted most states have really cleaned up their UCR reporting on
gun crimes. Once those were corrected the overall reporting accuracy
followed suit. But the relationships didn't change much even when you
retroactively adjust the numbers.

It looks like Taylor wants to make things look better for Dallas than they
are. That's pretty hard to do. Again, look at the numbers and see how big
those gaps are.

The FBI got into political trouble with its rankings a couple of decades
ago, so they toss in that disclaimer about comparing stats. The reason was
that it appeared to impugn the ability and effectiveness of many police
departments, which is a fair concern to have. As they say, there are a lot
of sociological factors that go into rates of crime. But that doesn't change
the fact that some places have vastly more crime than others. For example,
compare the murder rates of Louisiana with New York, or even with Texas.
Louisiana's murder rates are two to three times the rate in most other
states. That isn't because of the way they report. Dead people are easy to
count and hard to hide.

UCR numbers from non-metropolitan areas are much more variable. Don't make
the mistake of looking at the variables in rural areas and assume there are
the same variations in cities. It isn't so. Medium- and big-city police
departments are pretty consistent in the way they report.

--
Ed Huntress


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
RMDumse wrote:

On Oct 21, 4:47 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?



Or an convenient lie.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.37a0d0d.html

"Until this week, it seemed likely that Dallas would remain No. 1. But
the Police Department has discovered it hasn't been following FBI
guidelines, resulting in the overreporting of certain crimes.

"In some cases, the rules allow multiple crimes to be reported as a
single act. For example, 10 car break-ins committed by the same
burglar within a few minutes of one another count as one criminal act.
Dallas was reporting 10 crimes."

Or maybe not. It could be just NYC is better at covering up its
statistics than Dallas is. However, I know for a fact Dallas tries to
do the same, at least in one case I've already sighted.

Randy


Dunno where these numbers came from, so I'll offer up some more...

Dallas Crime stats:
http://www.ci.dallas.tx.us/dpd/stat_decision.htm
http://dallas.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm


The statistics I've quoted, and to which the two newspaper articles in
question refer to, are the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which are
well-defined an monitored by the FBI to a fairly good extent. They're
compiled from state reports. In recent years, a lot of progress has been
made in getting consistent and uniform reporting from the states, and
particularly from larger cities.


MISreporting statistics???
It's a real problem.
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/HRWG/PDF/hrwg03.pdf


No, it's not. Not in the US. That report is about international comparisons
of crime reports. Those are pretty much fouled up, and always have been.

Here's a suggestion from someone who was immersed, and I mean up to my
eyeballs, in these statistics for about four years: Don't jump to
conclusions about them. A lot more is known about these numbers than you can
comprehend from a couple of weekends spent with the UCR. The people who
compile them are not dummies.

The FBI doesn't report as much detail as we might expect because they know
where the question marks are in the fine details. As for what they report,
you can use it, with some caution, to uncover many patterns of crime in the
US. That's what they're for. They're not intended to be used for fodder in a
debate. They're intended to provide information for people who make policy
decisions about crime, not to give real estate agents or NG debaters fuel
for their arguments. If they're used intelligently they can tell you a lot.

When a Dallas reporter gets excited that they may be able to claim that
Dallas in not #1 in crime, but maybe #2, you know that the reporter is
misusing the stats. Likewise, when someone says that a minute fractional
adjustment in the numbers brings into question the 6:1 relationship between
burglaries in NYC vs. Dallas, the someone is misusing the stats. Minute
adjustments do not change the qualitative relationship when the numerical
relationship is 6:1. That's just denial and intentional obfuscation, trying
to make something appear that isn't there.

--
Ed Huntress


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

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

RMDumse wrote:


On Oct 21, 4:47 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?


Or an convenient lie.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.37a0d0d.html

"Until this week, it seemed likely that Dallas would remain No. 1. But
the Police Department has discovered it hasn't been following FBI
guidelines, resulting in the overreporting of certain crimes.

"In some cases, the rules allow multiple crimes to be reported as a
single act. For example, 10 car break-ins committed by the same
burglar within a few minutes of one another count as one criminal act.
Dallas was reporting 10 crimes."

Or maybe not. It could be just NYC is better at covering up its
statistics than Dallas is. However, I know for a fact Dallas tries to
do the same, at least in one case I've already sighted.

Randy


Dunno where these numbers came from, so I'll offer up some more...

Dallas Crime stats:
http://www.ci.dallas.tx.us/dpd/stat_decision.htm
http://dallas.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm



The statistics I've quoted, and to which the two newspaper articles in
question refer to, are the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which are
well-defined an monitored by the FBI to a fairly good extent. They're
compiled from state reports. In recent years, a lot of progress has been
made in getting consistent and uniform reporting from the states, and
particularly from larger cities.


MISreporting statistics???
It's a real problem.
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/HRWG/PDF/hrwg03.pdf



More **** cut.

--
Ed Huntress


Who give a flying **** about Dallas? Why don't you take your over-blown
self-opinionated crap to a usenet group that actually ****ing cares?

This is a metalworking group and not some forum for blowhards like yourself
who have nothing better to do but have an opinion on everything!
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

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?

Gunner



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


"Jake" wrote in message ...

snip

Who give a flying **** about Dallas?


It looks like you do, Jake. Otherwise, you could have just passed it by as
soon as you read the first line.

One of us should have marked it OT as soon as it got off track. I'll do that
right now.

--
Ed Huntress


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

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

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

That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to
call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's
there?

Two fewer thieves in the world because of him, obviously. Works for me.

And that's all you're going to get out of it, Doug, a little thrill.
Because
killing two burglars in a city that had 21,653 of them last year tells us
that all that will happen is that some gun-totin' folks who live in
fantasyland will get their rocks off when they watch the evening news.


[snip]

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?


Speaking of an inconvenient truth... was that 21,653 burglars? Or 21,653
burglarIES? If, as I imagine, it's really the latter, it's highly doubtful
that the actual number of burglars in Dallas is anywhere near that high --
and
quite possibly low enough that removing just two of them could make a
noticeable difference.


That's burglaries, reported and recorded.


As I thought. BurglarIES, not burglars.

Yeah, Doug. I'm sure removing
those two will make a noticeable difference. g Keep a sharp eye on the
Dallas burglary rate. With those two guys out of the picture, you'll
doubtless see a big drop in the numbers....[music up, theme to "The Twilight
Zone"...]


Get a clue, Ed. How many burglaries do you think the average burglar commits
in a year? One? Two? Please note, too, that "doubtless" and "big drop" are
*your* words, not mine. I said "quite possibly" and "noticeable difference."

Dig up a few more statistics: of those 21,653 burglaries, what percentage were
solved? And how many people were arrested? That should give you a pretty good
idea of how many people are actually involved -- and it isn't gonna be
anywhere *near* twenty-one thousand.


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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


"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

--
Ed Huntress


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


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

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

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

That's fine. Now, if he's so good to have around, why did he have to
call
the police 42 times and *still* have to shoot and kill two criminals
who
broke in? How much use is *that*? How much safer are you because he's
there?

Two fewer thieves in the world because of him, obviously. Works for
me.

And that's all you're going to get out of it, Doug, a little thrill.
Because
killing two burglars in a city that had 21,653 of them last year tells
us
that all that will happen is that some gun-totin' folks who live in
fantasyland will get their rocks off when they watch the evening news.

[snip]

There's an inconvenient truth for ya', huh?

Speaking of an inconvenient truth... was that 21,653 burglars? Or 21,653
burglarIES? If, as I imagine, it's really the latter, it's highly
doubtful
that the actual number of burglars in Dallas is anywhere near that
high --
and
quite possibly low enough that removing just two of them could make a
noticeable difference.


That's burglaries, reported and recorded.


As I thought. BurglarIES, not burglars.

Yeah, Doug. I'm sure removing
those two will make a noticeable difference. g Keep a sharp eye on the
Dallas burglary rate. With those two guys out of the picture, you'll
doubtless see a big drop in the numbers....[music up, theme to "The
Twilight
Zone"...]


Get a clue, Ed. How many burglaries do you think the average burglar
commits
in a year? One? Two? Please note, too, that "doubtless" and "big drop" are
*your* words, not mine. I said "quite possibly" and "noticeable
difference."

Dig up a few more statistics: of those 21,653 burglaries, what percentage
were
solved? And how many people were arrested? That should give you a pretty
good
idea of how many people are actually involved -- and it isn't gonna be
anywhere *near* twenty-one thousand.


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.

--
Ed Huntress


  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:52:13 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


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

You stopped your "research" too soon, Randy:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...e.2ee1bc8.html

===============================================


"It isn't just a Dallas thing"...

The very last line in the oc.


If you note the context, Dr. Taylor's remark refers to other Texas cities,
not to comparisons of total crimes between Texas and other states. What he's
suggesting by that is anybody's guess.

And the man is full of nonsense to begin with. He says "Dallas is not near
as violent, near as dangerous as people think it is," Dr. Taylor said. "It's
a very safe major city." You only have to spend ten minutes with the UCR --
or better yet, look at about a decade's worth of UCR statistics -- to
realize he's in cloud-cuckooland. Dallas is consistently one of the most
crime-ridden cities in the US. For the past nine years it's ranked #1, and
it still ranks #1 AFTER correcting for the reporting method.


I had a great-aunt Pat who lived there. She was mugged on her way into
her high-rise apartment one night. The guy ripped off half her face as
he caved in her skull, before raping her and burglarizing her
apartment. And she was a beefy, old, oogly woman, may she RIP.


The gaps are huge. Compare the numbers we've been talking about here,
between NYC and Dallas for burglaries. No amount of mis-reporting is going
to change those qualitative relationships.


As far as I'm concerned, strings of ten burglaries, etc. should be
counted as ten crimes by all law enforcement officials. There are ten
victims, right? So this combined reporting is how our crime stats
have improved, is it?


If you spend time with the people responsible in various states for
reporting UCR figures to the FBI (I have, in person and in phone
interviews), you quickly see where the reporting inconsistencies lie.
They're systematic, measurable, and usually easy to correct. Since the Brady
Bill was enacted most states have really cleaned up their UCR reporting on
gun crimes. Once those were corrected the overall reporting accuracy
followed suit. But the relationships didn't change much even when you
retroactively adjust the numbers.


It looks like Taylor wants to make things look better for Dallas than they
are. That's pretty hard to do. Again, look at the numbers and see how big
those gaps are.

The FBI got into political trouble with its rankings a couple of decades
ago, so they toss in that disclaimer about comparing stats. The reason was
that it appeared to impugn the ability and effectiveness of many police
departments, which is a fair concern to have. As they say, there are a lot
of sociological factors that go into rates of crime. But that doesn't change
the fact that some places have vastly more crime than others. For example,
compare the murder rates of Louisiana with New York, or even with Texas.
Louisiana's murder rates are two to three times the rate in most other
states. That isn't because of the way they report. Dead people are easy to
count and hard to hide.


Take a look at this map. It's mind blowing. Select the larger size and
choose a crime, or for the whole enchilada, choose All Crimes. Instant
blackout! http://maps.dallascityhall.com/index.asp?mo=CrimesOnMap


UCR numbers from non-metropolitan areas are much more variable. Don't make
the mistake of looking at the variables in rural areas and assume there are
the same variations in cities. It isn't so. Medium- and big-city police
departments are pretty consistent in the way they report.


Which is however the mayor/police chief/DA all want, right?

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


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:


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?

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


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


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.


So, it appears that killing criminals is what you consider "good," and the
original issue you were arguing -- the relative safety of that neighborhood,
compared to places that are a lot safer -- is not your real concern at all.

But that was the original argument, Doug. Perhaps the discussion has come
around to the thing you feel is really important.

Maybe you don't care -- you're in a safe place, so to hell with everyone
else,
eh?


I *do* care, and I don't care much if you kill bad guys or not. The issue,
and the whole argument, was about whether it's better to move your family to
a safe place or to stay in a dangerous one and shoot it out with the bad
guys. You and Randy have this theory that locked-and-loaded gun owners are
the source of all safety. Confronted with the facts to the contrary, you
keep reaching out for confounding speculations that support your position,
and then, when you see that there is no support for your position, you turn
the corner and start arguing something else. Like, for example, the thing
that's good in your book is killing a couple of criminals, no matter that
doing so hasn't improved the safety of Dallas by any measurable amount at
all.

All of which comes back to my original position. If you find yourself in a
dangerous position, the reasonable first thing to do is to defend yourself
and your family as best you can, and that may well include arming yourself.
But if I were in that position I'd know that I was just buying some time at
the very best, that I couldn't kill enough of them to make a damned bit of
difference, that the danger would remain the same as long as we were there,
and the only responsible thing to do, for my own sake and that of my family,
is to get out of there as fast as I could.

The fact is that Dallas has a serious social problem. You won't solve it by
trying to kill the criminals, and the evidence is that Dallas has a very
large number of well-equipped gun owners and has for a long time, but the
criminals keep coming. You keep doing the same thing and expecting a
different result, and we all know what that means, eh?

If you want to solve the problem, you can take a look at the things that
have really worked, like the way Rudy Giuliani made a radical improvement in
NYC's crime, and take some political action to make something like that
happen. But judge the real situation your family faces honestly before
subjecting them to your crusade. If it really is that dangerous, it isn't
responsible to keep them there.

--
Ed Huntress


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

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


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.


So, it appears that killing criminals is what you consider "good," and the
original issue you were arguing -- the relative safety of that neighborhood,
compared to places that are a lot safer -- is not your real concern at all.

But that was the original argument, Doug. Perhaps the discussion has come
around to the thing you feel is really important.

Maybe you don't care -- you're in a safe place, so to hell with everyone
else,
eh?


I *do* care, and I don't care much if you kill bad guys or not. The issue,
and the whole argument, was about whether it's better to move your family to
a safe place or to stay in a dangerous one and shoot it out with the bad
guys.

[snippo]

You miss the point [again] -- it's not up to you, or me, to judge or
second-guess the decisions and the situation of the guy who shot the burglars,
but unquestionably the place is better off for his presence, and the absence
of the men he shot, than it would be the other way around. That's a *fact*,
Ed, not speculation, and that it makes you uncomfortable does not make it any
less a fact.

Anyway -- I'm done with this subthread. Have the last word if it makes you
feel better, but know that I'd rather have Walton for a neighbor than you.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

On Oct 22, 10:39 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:
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?


Ed intimates we foolishly celebrate the death of the two bad guys. I
don't think that expresses my position at all. I for one celebrate the
survival ofJames through a harrowing experience I've experienced
myself (in the general sense of fending off the bad guys). But yes, I
am also releived the two bad guys are gone. Far more importantly, that
the body of bad guys might know our little area of town is very very
bad for them.

Think of it as land miines. There are plenty to worry about, however,
I breath a bit easier, because James just removed the two closest to
me. Ed feels no safer, while I notice a great improvement. It's a
matter of empathy. Can you see yourself in the other guy's place.

However I also note Ed is trying very hard to pass on his wisdom to
me, in that he has studied the situation at great length, and come up
with his solution. From his point of view, it is, acknowlege the
facts, the area you are in is dangerous. Use your feet sue for safety,
if not for yourselves, for the sake of your loved ones. However, in my
ears, I hear, "run away, run away". However, if everyone followed this
philosophy no one would be safe anywhere. Some where in the middle
between our two extremes is wisdom. All I am certain of is neither of
us have the best solution. It's an age old question. Some choose to
stand, some choose to run. Both have extremely well considered
rationales for their actions.

Thanks for a thought provoking discussion.

Randy

  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...

snip

You miss the point [again] -- it's not up to you, or me, to judge or
second-guess the decisions and the situation of the guy who shot the
burglars,


I have neither judged Walton nor second-guessed him. I have no problem with
him shooting those burglars.

but unquestionably the place is better off for his presence, and the
absence
of the men he shot, than it would be the other way around. That's a
*fact*,
Ed, not speculation, and that it makes you uncomfortable does not make it
any
less a fact.


It neither makes me uncomfortable nor does it make it a fact. You seem to
have a near endless supply of criminals in Dallas. Shooting two of them
makes no difference that you can measure, except in your fantasies. Nor is
there any evidence that your supply of well-armed citizens does anything to
reduce your outrageously high crime rate. The crime reports tell us that
your crime rate remains very high despite the fairly high number of armed
citizens you have, as measured by a report that was done some years ago.


Anyway -- I'm done with this subthread. Have the last word if it makes you
feel better, but know that I'd rather have Walton for a neighbor than you.


Doug, you argue that Walton's actions make you safer, which is nonsense, and
then you turn around and tell us what a great guy Walton is, as if the two
are connected in some logical way.

I have no trouble with Walton or what he did. It certainly was a help to
*him*, assuming the law agrees, and it seems to agree. What gets my goat is
the silly, and demonstrably false, suggestion that such actions are what we
need to make the rest of us safe. They don't make us safe. Based on crime
reports, they have no measurable effect whatsoever.

I don't care if that's the last word or not. Feel free to have another word
if you want.

--
Ed Huntress




  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...

snip

You miss the point [again] -- it's not up to you, or me, to judge or
second-guess the decisions and the situation of the guy who shot the
burglars,


I have neither judged Walton nor second-guessed him. I have no problem with
him shooting those burglars.

but unquestionably the place is better off for his presence, and the
absence
of the men he shot, than it would be the other way around. That's a
*fact*,
Ed, not speculation, and that it makes you uncomfortable does not make it
any
less a fact.


OK, I guess I'm not quite done yet, because you've made several categorically
false statements here.

It neither makes me uncomfortable nor does it make it a fact. You seem to
have a near endless supply of criminals in Dallas.


Not me -- I'm not within a thousand miles of Dallas.

Shooting two of them
makes no difference that you can measure, except in your fantasies. Nor is
there any evidence that your supply of well-armed citizens does anything to
reduce your outrageously high crime rate. The crime reports tell us that
your crime rate remains very high despite the fairly high number of armed
citizens you have, as measured by a report that was done some years ago.


Anyway -- I'm done with this subthread. Have the last word if it makes you
feel better, but know that I'd rather have Walton for a neighbor than you.


Doug, you argue that Walton's actions make you safer,


That simply is not true. I have never argued that.

which is nonsense, and
then you turn around and tell us what a great guy Walton is,


That isn't true either.

*Now* I'm done -- unless you make more false statements about what I've
written.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article .com, RMDumse wrote:

However, if everyone followed [Ed's]
philosophy no one would be safe anywhere.


Precisely so. But don't expect Ed to see that.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
snip


OK, I guess I'm not quite done yet...


Why did I guess that was the case? d8-)

.., because you've made several categorically
false statements here.

It neither makes me uncomfortable nor does it make it a fact. You seem to
have a near endless supply of criminals in Dallas.


Not me -- I'm not within a thousand miles of Dallas.


Then, for the people who live in Dallas. Please excuse that categorically
false statement of mine. From the way you talked, I thought you knew Walton
personally. g


Shooting two of them
makes no difference that you can measure, except in your fantasies. Nor is
there any evidence that your supply of well-armed citizens does anything
to
reduce your outrageously high crime rate. The crime reports tell us that
your crime rate remains very high despite the fairly high number of armed
citizens you have, as measured by a report that was done some years ago.


Anyway -- I'm done with this subthread. Have the last word if it makes
you
feel better, but know that I'd rather have Walton for a neighbor than
you.


Doug, you argue that Walton's actions make you safer,


That simply is not true. I have never argued that.


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."

Sorry, that must have been another Doug Miller.


which is nonsense, and
then you turn around and tell us what a great guy Walton is,


That isn't true either.


Jeez, after your comments about Walton's "guts," and that he's made things
safer because he killed two thieves, it appeared you think very highly of
him.

'Must have been another Doug Miller.


*Now* I'm done -- unless you make more false statements about what I've
written.


We'll catch up with that guy who's impersonating you and beat him up, Doug.
He may be hiding in Dallas. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
snip


OK, I guess I'm not quite done yet...


Why did I guess that was the case? d8-)

.., because you've made several categorically
false statements here.

It neither makes me uncomfortable nor does it make it a fact. You seem to
have a near endless supply of criminals in Dallas.


Not me -- I'm not within a thousand miles of Dallas.


Then, for the people who live in Dallas. Please excuse that categorically
false statement of mine. From the way you talked, I thought you knew Walton
personally. g


Shooting two of them
makes no difference that you can measure, except in your fantasies. Nor is
there any evidence that your supply of well-armed citizens does anything
to
reduce your outrageously high crime rate. The crime reports tell us that
your crime rate remains very high despite the fairly high number of armed
citizens you have, as measured by a report that was done some years ago.


Anyway -- I'm done with this subthread. Have the last word if it makes
you
feel better, but know that I'd rather have Walton for a neighbor than
you.

Doug, you argue that Walton's actions make you safer,


That simply is not true. I have never argued that.


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."

Sorry, that must have been another Doug Miller.


I didn't say it made me any safer. I said there are two less thieves in the
world.

Next time read what's there, not what you expect to see.


which is nonsense, and
then you turn around and tell us what a great guy Walton is,


That isn't true either.


Jeez, after your comments about Walton's "guts," and that he's made things
safer because he killed two thieves, it appeared you think very highly of
him.

'Must have been another Doug Miller.


I never said he was a great guy. Again: read what's there, not what you expect
to see.


*Now* I'm done -- unless you make more false statements about what I've
written.


We'll catch up with that guy who's impersonating you and beat him up, Doug.
He may be hiding in Dallas. d8-)


Read what's there, Ed, not what you expect to see.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


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



Doug, you argue that Walton's actions make you safer,

That simply is not true. I have never argued that.


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."

Sorry, that must have been another Doug Miller.


I didn't say it made me any safer. I said there are two less thieves in
the
world.

Next time read what's there, not what you expect to see.


Darn, another assumption on my part. Since that appeared to be a direct
response to my question, I thought you were actually...responding to the
question. Apparently you were starting another conversation, eh?

Tell you what, next time you're going to do that, give some kind of warning,
like "Although the following appears to be a response to your question, it's
actually not. I'm talking about something else entirely."

That will help avoid those errors in the future.

which is nonsense, and
then you turn around and tell us what a great guy Walton is,

That isn't true either.


Jeez, after your comments about Walton's "guts," and that he's made things
safer because he killed two thieves, it appeared you think very highly of
him.

'Must have been another Doug Miller.


I never said he was a great guy. Again: read what's there, not what you
expect
to see.


He has guts and he's made things safer because he killed two thieves, you
said. I could have sworn you thought highly of those two things. So much for
that.



*Now* I'm done -- unless you make more false statements about what I've
written.


We'll catch up with that guy who's impersonating you and beat him up,
Doug.
He may be hiding in Dallas. d8-)


Read what's there, Ed, not what you expect to see.


I do, Doug. Apparently, though, there's a lot less there than appears.

--
Ed Huntress




  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

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



Doug, you argue that Walton's actions make you safer,

That simply is not true. I have never argued that.

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."

Sorry, that must have been another Doug Miller.


I didn't say it made me any safer. I said there are two less thieves in
the
world.

Next time read what's there, not what you expect to see.


Darn, another assumption on my part. Since that appeared to be a direct
response to my question, I thought you were actually...responding to the
question. Apparently you were starting another conversation, eh?

Tell you what, next time you're going to do that, give some kind of warning,
like "Although the following appears to be a response to your question, it's
actually not. I'm talking about something else entirely."

That will help avoid those errors in the future.

which is nonsense, and
then you turn around and tell us what a great guy Walton is,

That isn't true either.

Jeez, after your comments about Walton's "guts," and that he's made things
safer because he killed two thieves, it appeared you think very highly of
him.

'Must have been another Doug Miller.


I never said he was a great guy. Again: read what's there, not what you
expect
to see.


He has guts and he's made things safer because he killed two thieves, you
said. I could have sworn you thought highly of those two things. So much for
that.



*Now* I'm done -- unless you make more false statements about what I've
written.

We'll catch up with that guy who's impersonating you and beat him up,
Doug.
He may be hiding in Dallas. d8-)


Read what's there, Ed, not what you expect to see.


I do, Doug. Apparently, though, there's a lot less there than appears.

You're reading a lot of things that aren't there, Ed.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

snip


You're reading a lot of things that aren't there, Ed.


[This from a guy who, in our last conversation, put words in my mouth about
conservatives not being willing to give emergency care, and other
stuff....sheesh.]

--
Ed Huntress


  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

snip


You're reading a lot of things that aren't there, Ed.


[This from a guy who, in our last conversation, put words in my mouth about
conservatives not being willing to give emergency care, and other
stuff....sheesh.]


I did *not* put those words in your mouth, Ed -- you did. And I posted the
cites to prove it, too.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0


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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

snip


You're reading a lot of things that aren't there, Ed.


[This from a guy who, in our last conversation, put words in my mouth
about
conservatives not being willing to give emergency care, and other
stuff....sheesh.]


I did *not* put those words in your mouth, Ed -- you did. And I posted the
cites to prove it, too.


No, you posted cites that proved you're full of crap. I never said the
things you accused me of saying. There is no question about what I said,
which is all still available online.

I'm beginning to think there's something more to this than disagreement,
Doug. You want to fill me in?

--
Ed Huntress


  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default OT: Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

snip


You're reading a lot of things that aren't there, Ed.

[This from a guy who, in our last conversation, put words in my mouth
about
conservatives not being willing to give emergency care, and other
stuff....sheesh.]


I did *not* put those words in your mouth, Ed -- you did. And I posted the
cites to prove it, too.


No, you posted cites that proved you're full of crap. I never said the
things you accused me of saying.


Ed, I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You did say it, and I posted cites
that prove it.

There is no question about what I said,
which is all still available online.


Indeed, there is no question at all about it. You *did* say that, and I've
already posted the proof. Twice.

I'm beginning to think there's something more to this than disagreement,
Doug. You want to fill me in?


I don't have any personal animus against you, Ed, none at all, but I'll
confess that I'm completely bewildered by your persistent denials of having
said something that the record clearly shows you did indeed say -- especially
after I've twice posted the proof, in response to those denials. I, too, am
beginning to think there's more to this than disagreement -- you want to fill
me in?

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dallas machinist 2, Bad guys 0 Rex Metalworking 225 October 25th 07 08:56 AM
The Machinist D Murphy Metalworking 36 December 3rd 05 05:50 PM
Dallas/Fort Worth Machinist Class Vernon Metalworking 1 December 9th 03 02:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"