- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Connecticut gun controls estimated to have cut fatal shootings by 40%
Posted on 6/14/15 at 11:58 am to Street Hawk
Posted on 6/14/15 at 11:58 am to Street Hawk
Meh. People are just leaning more toward shooting to wound these days.
0
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:01 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
ShortyRob
Did you have a stroke or something? Literally every one of your posts reads like a Nigerian prince email
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:01 pm to Street Hawk
But background checks and safety courses for voting id is a bad thing???
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:02 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
Connecticut gun controls estimated to have cut fatal shootings by 40%
quote:
Overall, the authors estimate that there were nearly 300 fewer firearm homicides in Connecticut between 1996 and 2005 compared to what would have occurred otherwise. That's a drop of 40 percent.
Why did the stop counting 10 years ago? What's the data from the past ten years(Did Sandy Hook screw the #s up?
The gun control laws were enacted in 1995...they studied the next decade of numbers in Connecticut and surrounding states that didnt have the laws to average an area of effect of the laws, not just for Conn.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:03 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
You said that gun restriction had nothing to do with this stat, so that must mean gun homicides dropped by this rate nation wide.
They did. You can easily look up the relevant figures from the FBI UCR from 1993 to present and see that overall there has been almost a 50% drop in firearm-related homicides.\
quote:
but facts are facts in this case.
When you actually know some facts, please let the group know.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:04 pm to Rand AlThor
quote:
And forcing an entire age group to essentially act as adults - doing all the same things the rest of us do, living on their own and doing all sorts of grown up things - without having the ability to defend themselves! Awesome!
And I bet if they arrest a 20 year old for possessing a gun they don't get charged as a juvenile, even though being a minor is an element of the crime.
Same stupidity with the drinking age.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:04 pm to Clames
quote:
1993 to present
Oh frick, my bad. I thought we were using the time parameters of the article.
Also, we are assuming the rest of the US enacted zero gun control laws in that same time. We need a control group as well.
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:05 pm to Street Hawk
quote:
Street Hawk
A large caliber handgun in Australia cost -/+30000 on the black market because of gun control. If you have 30000 dollars to spend on a hand gun you dont need to be a criminal.
It takes time for guns to work themselves out of the hands of criminals but eventually it happens and homocide from guns goes down...fact.
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:07 pm to fightin tigers
quote:Nationwide, violent crime dropped 25% between 1995 and 2005. Connecticut also experienced an actual population DROP from 1995-2000 while the rest of the nation experienced a substantial uptick.
You said that gun restriction had nothing to do with this stat, so that must mean gun homicides dropped by this rate nation wide.
Those two realities BY THEMSELVES squeeze the frick out of the 40% conclusion.
Good rule of thumb. If a stat seems WAY overboard absurd, you should probably delve into it further.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:10 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Nationwide, violent crime dropped 25% between 1995 and 2005.
Lets stick with the gun homicide aspect of this, that is the statement you made that I have a problem with.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:11 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
Why did the stop counting 10 years ago? What's the data from the past ten years(Did Sandy Hook screw the #s up?
Bingo, you made the connection that the OP failed to make as well as the other ignorants parroting this "study".
Just looking at CT's firearm homicide rates, 1993 - 1995 saw a more than 30% drop in just those few years BEFORE the legislation went into effect. That mirrors the national trend at the time too. If that study had extended another 5 years to 2010, it would only show about a 12% drop. If the study had covered the period from 1995 2014 the trend line would have virtually zero slope as CT, along with most of the Northeast, have had increased firearm homicides compared to the national average over the same period.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:11 pm to ShortyRob
By the way. While I do not agree with Connecticut's gun laws, feel free to use the realities I pointed out the next time someone tells you that a relaxed concealed carry law "caused" a drop in crime.
Basically, because of the huge drop nationwide, you can claim almost everything "caused" a drop in crime. Hell, the internet "caused" it!!!!
Oh, and for those saying, "but nationwide it wasn't 40%". Um, do you even normal distribution?
Basically, because of the huge drop nationwide, you can claim almost everything "caused" a drop in crime. Hell, the internet "caused" it!!!!
Oh, and for those saying, "but nationwide it wasn't 40%". Um, do you even normal distribution?
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:13 pm to Clames
quote:
Just looking at CT's firearm homicide rates, 1993 - 1995 saw a more than 30% drop in just those few years BEFORE the legislation went into effect. That mirrors the national trend at the time too. If that study had extended another 5 years to 2010, it would only show about a 12% drop. If the study had covered the period from 1995 2014 the trend line would have virtually zero slope as CT, along with most of the Northeast, have had increased firearm homicides compared to the national average over the same period.
So, you are saying that CT against a control group of states showed no difference in those years.
Lies
Damn Lies
Statistics
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:13 pm to fightin tigers
quote:Good God.
Lets stick with the gun homicide aspect of this, that is the statement you made that I have a problem with.
EVERY crime dropped in that period. Murders about the same.
They don't happen to list them just by gun crime but if you're going to say that murder and violent crime aren't good proxy numbers......well, da frick.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:14 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Lets stick with the gun homicide aspect of this, that is the statement you made that I have a problem with.
You aren't even trying are you? Typical.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:15 pm to fightin tigers
quote:I'm a stats guy.
So, you are saying that CT against a control group of states showed no difference in those years.
When a group "studies" something and they could've used 50 states, but they CHOOSE to use 38, my antenna go up.
Why those 38?
Look. Gun control didn't "cause" a 40% drop in gun crime and gun crime has dropped EVERYfrickINGWHERE!
But you guys go on eating your pablum. I've got shite to do.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:15 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
They don't happen to list them just by gun crime
Violent crime involves a lot more than guns. As stated, the non-gun related crimes in CT stayed with the national average over those years. The gun laws did nothing to curb them.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:16 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
So, you are saying that CT against a control group of states showed no difference in those years.
Doesn't show a difference that supports the conclusion they are trying to draw. Cherry picked stats are cherry picked stats but then again that is only apparent to those that passed grade-school algebra and have at least a room temperature IQ on this topic.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:16 pm to Clames
quote:
You aren't even trying are you? Typical.
Image Link
I'd say "boom" but why? People are hopelessly bad at math. What can you say.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:17 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I'm a stats guy.
quote:
Why those 38?
You should be able to figure out pretty quickly why a study would not want to include all of them.
Page 2 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News