Thread: Trayvon Martin (pardon me if this subject is verboten.)

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

As to the other issue I have no stats to refute your belief however I don't need any because I am not making any claims you are. It's like if I say to you a flying saucer landed down the block and little green men are outside and turned the tables on you and then said to you prove I'm wrong. If you say the gun law caused the drop in crime it's up to you to demonstrate that claim and stats by themselves can be used to say many things. There are all kinds of possibilities to explain them and they all have to be examined. Certainly you can have your belief as to the cause of the drop in crime however if you want absolutes that takes work, a lot of work.

The vast majority who examine the timeline/evidence come to the same, inescapable conclusion. Kennesaw, GA police are certainly convinced.

I got a story about elephants that paint their toenails red. If you have 30 years of stats on your little green men, along with their current address or a news report, that would be documentation. Anti-gunners have spent many man-hours trying to come up with another explanation or "possibility". To my knowledge, they haven't done it yet; or even commented on it. That's after 30 years of trying; assuming they didn't give up after the first year or two.

You are claiming the crime reduction is something else. Like what? Support your claim as I have. I would like to hear some of the possibilities you keep talking about (2nd request). Something relevant to the stats and timeline maybe?

Originally Posted by Sticky

The vast majority who examine the timeline/evidence come to the same, inescapable conclusion. Kennesaw, GA police are certainly convinced.

I got a story about elephants that paint their toenails red. If you have 30 years of stats on your little green men, along with their current address or a news report, that would be documentation. Anti-gunners have spent many man-hours trying to come up with another explanation or "possibility". To my knowledge, they haven't done it yet; or even commented on it. That's after 30 years of trying; assuming they didn't give up after the first year or two.

You are claiming the crime reduction is something else. Like what? Support your claim as I have. I would like to hear some of the possibilities you keep talking about (2nd request). Something relevant to the stats and timeline maybe?

You are missing my point.

I am not claiming the stats are bad or the conclusion being made is bad. I'm strictly talking about the the mechanism used to reach the conclusion.

What I am saying is you can't make a conclusion by just looking at stats. I have no idea what variables there might be but I can tell you there are always variables and usually they are things that are not usually thought of as causal to the casual observer.

For me to be convinced I'd have to see an impartial study having been done to evaluate this issue to determine what factors might exist to explain the conclusion and then you have to figure out the weight each factor has. This kind of thing is done all the time in many other areas. It's like a social science experiment and in the end you can use quantitative analysis to figure out what is going on. Then you will know the truth.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

in the end you can use quantitative analysis to figure out what is going on. Then you will know the truth.

I kind of assumed that had been done here, and with other observational studies involving crime as it relates to gun laws.
Maybe not with what's cited in the specific link provided - I didn't bother to read it.

Originally Posted by Sticky

You are claiming the crime reduction is something else. Like what? Support your claim as I have. I would like to hear some of the possibilities you keep talking about (2nd request). Something relevant to the stats and timeline maybe?

To name a few variables: Did the number of police officers increse over the 30 year period? What about the average age of the officers? How has police training evolved over the thirty years? How does the growth of technology effect it? I'm not saying that the statistics are wrong. There is just more to it than CCW lowered crime.

Think that if every one lived by Mr Wayne's Quote we might not have these problems :...“I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, and I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

You are missing my point.

I am not claiming the stats are bad or the conclusion being made is bad. I'm strictly talking about the the mechanism used to reach the conclusion.

What I am saying is you can't make a conclusion by just looking at stats. I have no idea what variables there might be but I can tell you there are always variables and usually they are things that are not usually thought of as causal to the casual observer.

For me to be convinced I'd have to see an impartial study having been done to evaluate this issue to determine what factors might exist to explain the conclusion and then you have to figure out the weight each factor has. This kind of thing is done all the time in many other areas. It's like a social science experiment and in the end you can use quantitative analysis to figure out what is going on. Then you will know the truth.

Yup, I was missing your point. Oops.

Still, there has been over 30 years of analysis by anti and pro gunners alike; and many news services. If the anti-gunners could come up with any alternate plausible explanation or contributing factor, they would have certainly used it. Quantitative analysis is useless unless someone can come up with a possible factor (during 1982) for crime reduction other than the 82 law. No one known has done it yet.

If anyone in Kennesaw noticed another event or factor, other than the 82 law going into effect in 82, they don't seem to be aware of it; nor has anyone else. The local police were/are convinced, as the Mayor(s) were/are. I think someone in the local PD would have noticed any other local factors coming into play in 1982. It seems to be the only explanation offered by any source; after 30 years of analysis.

Here's a "news" report analysis regarding Kennesaw and the sister-city that prompted passage of the 82 law. Not sure whether the report is impartial or not. It's noteworthy that the sister-city's crime rate increased by over 15%, directly after they passed their "no gun" law. Their surrounding counties crime rate rose only 3% during the same period.

Originally Posted by Theseus

To name a few variables: Did the number of police officers increse over the 30 year period? What about the average age of the officers? How has police training evolved over the thirty years? How does the growth of technology effect it? I'm not saying that the statistics are wrong. There is just more to it than CCW lowered crime.

It wasn't CCW... It was a "mandatory gun and ammo ownership law for homes/heads of household", basically. The law also allowed easy outs for those wishing to ignore the 82 law.

The decrease happened almost immediately, the 30 year period is just icing on the cake.

EDIT: I'm not sure when CCW "shall issue" went into effect in GA. If CCW was a new factor in 1982, then that is still "crime reduction = gun ownership/possession".

2nd EDIT: It seems that GA went "shall issue" around 1976. The Kennesaw, GA "mandatory gun" law in 82 might have convinced some Kennesaw residents to go ahead and get a CCW permit. That would still be "crime reduction = gun ownership/possession".

*sigh* There's really no reason to keep on about Kennesaw, I promise. The actual story there is far less interesting than what activists would have everyone believe.

I almost married a gal from Kennesaw, and I spent quite a bit of time with her family there in the late 90s-early 00's, got to know her friends, and all that jazz. I heard a LOT of things about the sweeping, ongoing demographic changes there. Lots of things about the zealous police, too, and absolutely nothing about the gun law. Not one word.

(And before anyone suggests otherwise, this girl's family was oriented somewhere between Focus on the Family and David Duke, so these weren't liberal circles I was in.)

Anecdotal, of course, but it sure made sense when I read that Kennesaw police lieutenant Craig Graydon attributed the drop in crime to proactive policing and close police liaison with community and business groups. Interestingly, he also said that gun ownership was estimated to have decreased in the years after the law was passed. source

If you don't dig deep, Kennesaw's story does make for a good talking point, but of the many changes going on around there during the last 30 years, it's a safe bet that the gun law didn't have a leading role. It's too bad, really, because there might be some things to learn from the real reasons the crime dropped.

Originally Posted by northpaw

...
If you don't dig deep, Kennesaw's story does make for a good talking point, but of the many changes going on around there during the last 30 years, it's a safe bet that the gun law didn't have a leading role. It's too bad, really, because there might be some things to learn from the real reasons the crime dropped.

There must have been some other event during 1982-1983 that caused the immediate drop in crime rate. Too bad no one can figure out what it was.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Zimmerman had more than enough justification to use deadly force. In Texas he would be a free man. They should drop the case.

The only thing I have to disagree about with this statement is he would get as much media attention in Texas as in Florida - therefore it would be the same stalemate.