On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:05:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Some of these conclusions are borderline nuts. For example, the claim above
that "the punks, thugs, and gang-bangers all have one or more!!" doesn't
stand up. You can dig deeper and get precise figures for DC on this, but the
fact is that only 9% of violent crimes in the US involve the use of a
firearm (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005). Most criminals, even
violent ones, don't own a gun. The numbers are there is you take the time to
look.

Around ten years ago I made a thorough check of FBI UCR, NCVS, and
city/state statistics, and a surprising fact came up: If criminals own guns,
they rarely carry them in the commission of a crime. The evidence is strong,
but not conclusive, that a smaller percentage of criminals *own* guns than
the population at large. How does *that* fit into your right-wing
ideological bull****?

Might this be because the population at large is predominantly
non-criminal?

Few criminals are registered gun owners? Well duh! Few are
registered drug abusers too, I'll bet.

The gangbangers shooting each other with frequent collateral damage
certainly have guns, whether or not they officially or admittedly own
them.

Don't know about you, but I see a lot more armed violence in the
papers now than I did ten years ago. The vast majority of it is
gang-related. Gangs are present now in many cities and neighborhoods
that had no gang issues 10 years ago. St. Cloud, MN used to be a
sleepy little college town. The St. Cloud P.D. now has a gang unit.
Etc etc.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:05:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Some of these conclusions are borderline nuts. For example, the claim
above
that "the punks, thugs, and gang-bangers all have one or more!!" doesn't
stand up. You can dig deeper and get precise figures for DC on this, but
the
fact is that only 9% of violent crimes in the US involve the use of a
firearm (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005). Most criminals, even
violent ones, don't own a gun. The numbers are there is you take the time
to
look.

Around ten years ago I made a thorough check of FBI UCR, NCVS, and
city/state statistics, and a surprising fact came up: If criminals own
guns,
they rarely carry them in the commission of a crime. The evidence is
strong,
but not conclusive, that a smaller percentage of criminals *own* guns than
the population at large. How does *that* fit into your right-wing
ideological bull****?

Might this be because the population at large is predominantly
non-criminal?

What? What does that have to do with it?


Few criminals are registered gun owners? Well duh! Few are
registered drug abusers too, I'll bet.

Who said "few"? Who said "registered"? You did, not me.


The gangbangers shooting each other with frequent collateral damage
certainly have guns, whether or not they officially or admittedly own
them.

Well, go look at the numbers, Don. They're well reported by DOJ, the FBI,
and states. If you have some data that contradicts what I said above, we'd
love to see it. Otherwise, you're off base.


Don't know about you, but I see a lot more armed violence in the
papers now than I did ten years ago.

You must be reading some very strange papers. The violent crime reported in
1998 was 567.6/100k population. For 2006, the most recent year with complete
figures, it was 473.5/100k. The total numbers have dropped, as well. The
first half of 2007 shows a further decline of 1.8% from the first half of
2006.

That's available with about 20 seconds of looking, from the FBI Uniform
Crime Reports.

The vast majority of it is
gang-related. Gangs are present now in many cities and neighborhoods
that had no gang issues 10 years ago. St. Cloud, MN used to be a
sleepy little college town. The St. Cloud P.D. now has a gang unit.
Etc etc.

Look at the numbers if you're going to conclude what the trend is. Anecdotes
don't cut it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:15:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:05:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Some of these conclusions are borderline nuts. For example, the claim
above
that "the punks, thugs, and gang-bangers all have one or more!!" doesn't
stand up. You can dig deeper and get precise figures for DC on this, but
the
fact is that only 9% of violent crimes in the US involve the use of a
firearm (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005). Most criminals, even
violent ones, don't own a gun. The numbers are there is you take the time
to
look.

Around ten years ago I made a thorough check of FBI UCR, NCVS, and
city/state statistics, and a surprising fact came up: If criminals own
guns,
they rarely carry them in the commission of a crime. The evidence is
strong,
but not conclusive, that a smaller percentage of criminals *own* guns than
the population at large. How does *that* fit into your right-wing
ideological bull****?

Might this be because the population at large is predominantly
non-criminal?

What? What does that have to do with it?

Geez, Ed! You wrote immediately above: "The evidence is strong ...
that a smaller percentage of criminals *own* guns than the population
at large." They don't *own* them in a way visible to statisticians
because criminals are not allowed to own them! Admitting ownership
would be admitting to a felony. It therefore follows that a larger
percentage of the general population would be known to own guns.
Possession or access is entirely another matter.


Few criminals are registered gun owners? Well duh! Few are
registered drug abusers too, I'll bet.

Who said "few"? Who said "registered"? You did, not me.

You said "smaller percentage". I paraphrased that to "few". Perhaps
I should have said "fewer" since a smaller percentage of a smaller
group is definitely "fewer". You're right, you did not say
"registered". I'll admit to mild sarcasm there, sorry. Please
substitute "known in some provable way to own or possess".


The gangbangers shooting each other with frequent collateral damage
certainly have guns, whether or not they officially or admittedly own
them.

Well, go look at the numbers, Don. They're well reported by DOJ, the FBI,
and states. If you have some data that contradicts what I said above, we'd
love to see it. Otherwise, you're off base.

You said that statistics indicate that a smaller percentage of
criminals... Could be, but statistics cannot refute that the
gangbangers shooting each other (and others) are using guns to do it.
The shootings reported in the press (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) are
overwhelmingly gang-related. The press may not be any more reliable
than government statistics, but I don't know what agenda would make
them any less so in this case.


Don't know about you, but I see a lot more armed violence in the
papers now than I did ten years ago.

You must be reading some very strange papers.

Minneapolis Star Tribune, the mainstream newspaper for Minneapolis
and the region, with a 140-year history.
http://www.startribunecompany.com/123

The violent crime reported in
1998 was 567.6/100k population. For 2006, the most recent year with complete
figures, it was 473.5/100k. The total numbers have dropped, as well. The
first half of 2007 shows a further decline of 1.8% from the first half of
2006.

That's available with about 20 seconds of looking, from the FBI Uniform
Crime Reports.

When does a violent crime become reported by your stats? I'll wager
that it is certainly not before a complaint is filed or an arrest is
made. The press can report what the police also know but can't make
stick. I don't think the Mnpls Star Trib is making this stuff up.

The vast majority of it is
gang-related. Gangs are present now in many cities and neighborhoods
that had no gang issues 10 years ago. St. Cloud, MN used to be a
sleepy little college town. The St. Cloud P.D. now has a gang unit.
Etc etc.

Look at the numbers if you're going to conclude what the trend is. Anecdotes
don't cut it.

It's as easy to be blinded by numbers as it is to cite isolated
anecdotes. You know better than most that stastics can be massaged
to suit an agenda. St. Cloud P.D. would not fund a gang unit if they
didn't see a need for it, even if St. Cloud is an insignificant pimple
on statewide and nationwide statistics.

Police depts and city governments are strongly motivated to minimize,
to show progress in the "fight against crime" The press presents the
question, "if we're making such good progress, how come there's so
much shooting going on?" "Why do the people who live in those
neighborhoods feel less safe than they used to."

Further, DOJ, FBI and state statistics are large-scale, based on
standardized reports submitted by officials. Consider the
statistician who drowns in the river with mean depth of 4 feet. If we
are making net progress at the state and national level, that's great
news ... but no comfort to the folks who see a shooting per week on
their block. Fewer reported crimes could also indicate less
effective enforcement as city budgets get squeezed. As libraries and
schools close, P.D. budgets take their hits too. Who cares if the
gangbangers shoot each other wholesale? Perhaps nobody does, but some
do care about collateral damage that happens.

Do you know of government statistics that address how safe folks feel
that live in areas of gang activity? Do you think they would feel
safer after being shown the DOJ/FBI statistics?

The press gets out and talks to people, admittedly with the objective
of selling newspapers and air time but I don't think they're making it
up. I think we're seeing increased distrust of government
reassurances because folks feel like the gummint is blowing smoke at
them. They're saying fine, they'll call 911 first but they want
something more than hope as a defense while they wait for a response
that may take a while. They are starting to feel like hope is not a
viable strategy.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:15:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:05:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Some of these conclusions are borderline nuts. For example, the claim
above
that "the punks, thugs, and gang-bangers all have one or more!!" doesn't
stand up. You can dig deeper and get precise figures for DC on this, but
the
fact is that only 9% of violent crimes in the US involve the use of a
firearm (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005). Most criminals,
even
violent ones, don't own a gun. The numbers are there is you take the
time
to
look.

Around ten years ago I made a thorough check of FBI UCR, NCVS, and
city/state statistics, and a surprising fact came up: If criminals own
guns,
they rarely carry them in the commission of a crime. The evidence is
strong,
but not conclusive, that a smaller percentage of criminals *own* guns
than
the population at large. How does *that* fit into your right-wing
ideological bull****?

Might this be because the population at large is predominantly
non-criminal?

What? What does that have to do with it?

Geez, Ed! You wrote immediately above: "The evidence is strong ...
that a smaller percentage of criminals *own* guns than the population
at large." They don't *own* them in a way visible to statisticians
because criminals are not allowed to own them! Admitting ownership
would be admitting to a felony.

The evidence is based on confiscations, in their residences and on their
persons. As I said, it isn't conclusive, but there's enough of it to make a
case that criminals in general are less likely to own guns than law-abiding
citizens are.

It therefore follows that a larger
percentage of the general population would be known to own guns.
Possession or access is entirely another matter.

Why?

Few criminals are registered gun owners? Well duh! Few are
registered drug abusers too, I'll bet.

Who said "few"? Who said "registered"? You did, not me.

You said "smaller percentage". I paraphrased that to "few". Perhaps
I should have said "fewer" since a smaller percentage of a smaller
group is definitely "fewer". You're right, you did not say
"registered". I'll admit to mild sarcasm there, sorry. Please
substitute "known in some provable way to own or possess".

Confiscations. Persons and residences.



The gangbangers shooting each other with frequent collateral damage
certainly have guns, whether or not they officially or admittedly own
them.

Well, go look at the numbers, Don. They're well reported by DOJ, the FBI,
and states. If you have some data that contradicts what I said above, we'd
love to see it. Otherwise, you're off base.

You said that statistics indicate that a smaller percentage of
criminals... Could be, but statistics cannot refute that the
gangbangers shooting each other (and others) are using guns to do it.
The shootings reported in the press (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) are
overwhelmingly gang-related. The press may not be any more reliable
than government statistics, but I don't know what agenda would make
them any less so in this case.


Don't know about you, but I see a lot more armed violence in the
papers now than I did ten years ago.

You must be reading some very strange papers.

Minneapolis Star Tribune, the mainstream newspaper for Minneapolis
and the region, with a 140-year history.
http://www.startribunecompany.com/123

The violent crime reported in
1998 was 567.6/100k population. For 2006, the most recent year with
complete
figures, it was 473.5/100k. The total numbers have dropped, as well. The
first half of 2007 shows a further decline of 1.8% from the first half of
2006.

That's available with about 20 seconds of looking, from the FBI Uniform
Crime Reports.

When does a violent crime become reported by your stats? I'll wager
that it is certainly not before a complaint is filed or an arrest is
made. The press can report what the police also know but can't make
stick. I don't think the Mnpls Star Trib is making this stuff up.

If you want to know how the FBI's UCR works, check into it. It's not
something I can explain quickly.

MN has had about a 12% increase in violent crime over that span of time.
Overall, violent crime has declined across the US during the past decade, as
I indicated above. I don't know if you'd recognize a 12% increase as "a lot
more crime," but it probably is more a matter of changes in the way it's
being reported, or an increase in your attention to it.


The vast majority of it is
gang-related. Gangs are present now in many cities and neighborhoods
that had no gang issues 10 years ago. St. Cloud, MN used to be a
sleepy little college town. The St. Cloud P.D. now has a gang unit.
Etc etc.

Look at the numbers if you're going to conclude what the trend is.
Anecdotes
don't cut it.

It's as easy to be blinded by numbers as it is to cite isolated
anecdotes. You know better than most that stastics can be massaged
to suit an agenda.

And what's the FBI's agenda, Don?

St. Cloud P.D. would not fund a gang unit if they
didn't see a need for it, even if St. Cloud is an insignificant pimple
on statewide and nationwide statistics.

Police depts and city governments are strongly motivated to minimize,
to show progress in the "fight against crime" The press presents the
question, "if we're making such good progress, how come there's so
much shooting going on?" "Why do the people who live in those
neighborhoods feel less safe than they used to."

Further, DOJ, FBI and state statistics are large-scale, based on
standardized reports submitted by officials. Consider the
statistician who drowns in the river with mean depth of 4 feet. If we
are making net progress at the state and national level, that's great
news ... but no comfort to the folks who see a shooting per week on
their block. Fewer reported crimes could also indicate less
effective enforcement as city budgets get squeezed. As libraries and
schools close, P.D. budgets take their hits too. Who cares if the
gangbangers shoot each other wholesale? Perhaps nobody does, but some
do care about collateral damage that happens.

All of this would have some meaning, perhaps, if you had some facts about
how the reporting is done, etc. But you're just guessing.


Do you know of government statistics that address how safe folks feel
that live in areas of gang activity? Do you think they would feel
safer after being shown the DOJ/FBI statistics?

The press gets out and talks to people, admittedly with the objective
of selling newspapers and air time but I don't think they're making it
up. I think we're seeing increased distrust of government
reassurances because folks feel like the gummint is blowing smoke at
them. They're saying fine, they'll call 911 first but they want
something more than hope as a defense while they wait for a response
that may take a while. They are starting to feel like hope is not a
viable strategy.

I think you may be the only conservative here who thinks he's getting an
accurate picture of events from the press. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:52:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



And what's the FBI's agenda, Don?

Preservation of image, funding level and bureaucratic turf. Job 1 is
never, ever embarrass the Bureau.


The press gets out and talks to people, admittedly with the objective
of selling newspapers and air time but I don't think they're making it
up. I think we're seeing increased distrust of government
reassurances because folks feel like the gummint is blowing smoke at
them. They're saying fine, they'll call 911 first but they want
something more than hope as a defense while they wait for a response
that may take a while. They are starting to feel like hope is not a
viable strategy.

I think you may be the only conservative here who thinks he's getting an
accurate picture of events from the press. g

I did not portray the press as accurate, Ed, but I've no reason to
think that they're wholesale liars any more than the government is. I
stipulated that their objective is to sell newspapers and airtime.

Extrapolations of large-scale statistics to macro situations can also
be misleading.

A suite of noisy sensors with biasses and errors can still provide
good data, guidance and control if the raw data is dealt with
properly. See,e.g.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:52:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



And what's the FBI's agenda, Don?

Preservation of image, funding level and bureaucratic turf. Job 1 is
never, ever embarrass the Bureau.

So what's your evidence that their reporting of UCR figures is not
legitimate? If they're so worried about embarrassing the Bureau, why did
they show steady, alarming increases in violent crime for nearly three
decades?

Do you know how the UCR figures are compiled, Don? Do you know about the new
training and regulations that the states have to comply with?

You're jumping to conclusions in a vacuum, once again.



The press gets out and talks to people, admittedly with the objective
of selling newspapers and air time but I don't think they're making it
up. I think we're seeing increased distrust of government
reassurances because folks feel like the gummint is blowing smoke at
them. They're saying fine, they'll call 911 first but they want
something more than hope as a defense while they wait for a response
that may take a while. They are starting to feel like hope is not a
viable strategy.

I think you may be the only conservative here who thinks he's getting an
accurate picture of events from the press. g

I did not portray the press as accurate, Ed, but I've no reason to
think that they're wholesale liars any more than the government is. I
stipulated that their objective is to sell newspapers and airtime.

Extrapolations of large-scale statistics to macro situations can also
be misleading.

You probably mean "micro" there, but the response is, not when you're
talking about national trends. Why MN should have increases in violent
crime, even if it's only 12% in a decade, while it's been falling in the
rest of the country, is an interesting question. Why do you think that is?


A suite of noisy sensors with biasses and errors can still provide
good data, guidance and control if the raw data is dealt with
properly. See,e.g.,

All of this would hold more interest if you actually had reason to question
the numbers. We haven't seen any evidence that you even know what the UCR is
reporting, let alone what might be wrong with their methodology. Like Gunner
and the rest of the crew, you're reaching for an explanation before you even
know what the question is.

This isn't something you can talk about sensibly if you haven't done the
research, Don. It doesn't appear magically while you sit in an armchair and
speculate.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:52:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The evidence is based on confiscations, in their residences and on their
persons. As I said, it isn't conclusive, but there's enough of it to make a
case that criminals in general are less likely to own guns than law-abiding
citizens are.

Confiscation necessarily requires confrontation, either arrest or
search warrant. Confontation requires identification and probable
cause. If all or even most criminals were identified and confronted
we'd be in much better shape than we are.

In many shootings, the only person left at the scene when the cops
arrive is the shootee. No guns collected, so none exist?

The statistics look good, though. Lookee here, we're doing a great
job!


If you want to know how the FBI's UCR works, check into it. It's not
something I can explain quickly.

I have, though certainly not in the depth that you have. The system
is only as good and complete as the data submitted in a standard
format by the various reporting agencies.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:52:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The evidence is based on confiscations, in their residences and on their
persons. As I said, it isn't conclusive, but there's enough of it to make
a
case that criminals in general are less likely to own guns than
law-abiding
citizens are.

Confiscation necessarily requires confrontation, either arrest or
search warrant. Confontation requires identification and probable
cause. If all or even most criminals were identified and confronted
we'd be in much better shape than we are.

That's probably true, but what does it have to do with the point?

I've spent enough time pulling out the facts on this one, Don. If all you're
going to do is to sit back and speculate about what *might* be wrong about
this or that, without lifting a finger to support your claims, this will
just go on forever.

FWIW, this is what I've encountered in these discussions for decades: people
pulling claims and "facts" out of their butts. That's what's gotten us into
so many gun-related conflicts throughout this society. People are making it
up, or citing a few anecdotes, or focusing on one part of the issue while
ignoring the larger one...or just guessing.

It doesn't lead to any useful ideas. I spent a huge amount of work during a
wave of gun control legislation here in NJ, back in the early '90s, and the
depressing thing I learned is that no one really cares about the facts. And
that's as true of the pro-gun side as of the antis. It's like talking to a
brick wall. Their minds are made up, regardless of the fact that they
usually have no idea what they're talking about. All they do is speculate
and guess.

snip

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:39:15 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:52:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The evidence is based on confiscations, in their residences and on their
persons. As I said, it isn't conclusive, but there's enough of it to make
a
case that criminals in general are less likely to own guns than
law-abiding
citizens are.

Confiscation necessarily requires confrontation, either arrest or
search warrant. Confontation requires identification and probable
cause. If all or even most criminals were identified and confronted
we'd be in much better shape than we are.

That's probably true, but what does it have to do with the point?

Merely that the evidence does not make the case you claim above.

I've spent enough time pulling out the facts on this one, Don. If all you're
going to do is to sit back and speculate about what *might* be wrong about
this or that, without lifting a finger to support your claims, this will
just go on forever.

The only claims I have made a
1: "good" security is very situation-dependent
2: large-scale statistics, while perhaps good for policy making, do
not always address particular and specific problem areas. Those who
rely only on large-scale statistics are oblivious to some local issues
as they focus on the "big picture".

FWIW, this is what I've encountered in these discussions for decades: people
pulling claims and "facts" out of their butts. That's what's gotten us into
so many gun-related conflicts throughout this society. People are making it
up, or citing a few anecdotes, or focusing on one part of the issue while
ignoring the larger one...or just guessing.

There's definitely a lot of that going on -- in both directions. Some
focus on the larger one while ignoring parts of it, others focus on
parts of it that impact them immediately and personally.

It doesn't lead to any useful ideas. I spent a huge amount of work during a
wave of gun control legislation here in NJ, back in the early '90s, and the
depressing thing I learned is that no one really cares about the facts. And
that's as true of the pro-gun side as of the antis. It's like talking to a
brick wall. Their minds are made up, regardless of the fact that they
usually have no idea what they're talking about. All they do is speculate
and guess.

I am not speculating and guessing about security ... but you have done
so. I have tried to offer some insight. You've rebuffed it and
ridiculed the source in the process. Roger that!

Things are different now than they were in the early '90's. Your
stats show that to some extent but they don't seem to indicate how
very different they have become in some particular areas during the
past few years. Crime in MN has incresed 12% or whatever. OK, I
invite you to rent a house in North Minneapolis for a month. Bring
your report for comfort reading on your nocturnal strolls.

Now go to an outstate county. I'll bet there aren't a dozen gun safes
in all of Pope county (aside from the one dealer I know of), while
there is very probably one or more rifles and shotguns in nearly every
domocile. In 2000 there were 0 murders, 0 robberies and 47
burglaries (which includes lake cabins closed for the season) in the
whole damned county.

I am not attacking the veracity of your statistics. I don't accept
them as gospel, but they're undoubtedly as good as any such data can
be. Stats are gathered by people and bureaucracies, people and
bureaucracies have their own agendae. So does the press.

They are probably the right basis for higher-level policymaking.
I merely suggest that they don't tell the whole story for everyone.

-30-