NRA reasoning

[fuji]

I am talking about one particular politician regarding one particular issue, not a general claim, or do none of them know anything at all about what they are talking about?

And again, I will say that Bloomberg knows more than you in regards to his city.

And the data very obviously shows that this very partisan anti gun politician is wrong.

Data. Shows.

What are you still debating here? You don't need to take my word. Go look up the homicide rate and see for yourself. It's an easy google and you can use your own eyes to see.

 

[shack]

And the data very obviously shows that this very partisan anti gun politician is wrong.

So your claim is that you know more than Bloomberg as to how his city functions.

Let's hear (read) you say it.

 

[groggy]

According to this article:

gun possession makes one 4.46 times more likely to be a victim of gun violence

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/20131195115777478.html

They also say:

The US is an extreme outlier with respect to gun violence in international terms. One study found that the rate of gun deaths in the US was eight times that of other high-income countries. Another study , comparing the US to 23 other high-income countries found that the US accounted for 80 percent of all firearm deaths and 87 percent of all firearm deaths for children aged 0-14.

Interesting article, compares right wing policies with NRA policies.

 

[blackrock13]

So your claim is that you know more than Bloomberg as to how his city functions.

Let's hear (read) you say it.

Do you mean 'actually' post the data and reports he keeps referring to? What are you thinking?

 

[fuji]

So your claim is that you know more than Bloomberg as to how his city functions.

Let's hear (read) you say it.

No, am saying that he is an anti gun partisan who has made false claims in this case.

I am saying we do not have to turn to any authority for an opinion on that because we have the very clear and obvious data to look at.

Anyone with eyes to see can verify for themselves that crime started dropping before the gun policy went into effect and that the biggest drops were in the years before.

 

[shack]

Do you mean 'actually' post the data and reports he keeps referring to? What are you thinking?

He wants me to post data as to why I believe Bloomberg.

Since he is basically challenging Bloomberg's assertions (not mine), it is incumbent upon him to "prove" those assertions wrong beyond "his policies were insignificant" or "it was due to an increase in affluence" and "gentrification" without zero proof particular to New York. Strictly generalizations and opinions based on the intuition of a gun owner.

As far as I know, only fuji claims Bloomberg is ignorant of the reality of the situation or he is outright lying. I've seen nothing out of New York itself that challenges Bloomberg's claims. Nobody there that says he doesn't know what he's talking about or that he is lying through his teeth. If he was lying or making false claims, New Yorkers would be speaking out. But again, fuji feels he knows more than, not only Bloomberg, but his constituents as well.

 

[fuji]

Do you mean 'actually' post the data and reports he keeps referring to? What are you thinking?

Do you need me to google homicides per year in new york for you? It's not like this information is secret.

 

[shack]

Anyone with eyes to see can verify for themselves that crime started dropping before the gun policy went into effect and that the biggest drops were in the years before.

And with his policies, they have dropped even more.

Even you have declared that getting gun violence under control requires a multifactorial approach. But for some reason all the other factors are more important than limiting access to guns.

Bloomberg has embraced a multifactorial approach that has achieved significant results. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[fuji]

And with his policies, they have dropped even more.

Where is the evidence that gun policy had anything whatsoever to do with it? Seems more likely that the same factors as before simply continued.

Even you have declared that getting gun violence under control requires a multifactorial approach. But for some reason all the other factors are more important than limiting access to guns.

I have said the answer is in preventing people from becoming criminals and that gun policy had either no detectable effect or a very weak effect.

There just isn't any evidence that it is significantly related to crime anywhere. Neither allowing concealed carry nor restricting guns makes a dent in the statistics.

 

[fuji]

He wants me to post data as to why I believe Bloomberg.

That would be nice.

I sure as hell don't believe everything politicians say, especially when there are clear facts contradicting them.

 

[shack]

That would be nice.

I sure as hell don't believe everything politicians say, especially when there are clear facts contradicting them.

He wants me to post data as to why I believe Bloomberg.

Since he is basically challenging Bloomberg's assertions (not mine), it is incumbent upon him to "prove" those assertions wrong beyond "his policies were insignificant" or "it was due to an increase in affluence" and "gentrification" without zero proof particular to New York. Strictly generalizations and opinions based on the intuition of a gun owner

My response, again.

 

[shack]

That would be nice.

I sure as hell don't believe everything politicians say, especially when there are clear facts contradicting them.

You keep giving the same answer. i.e., you know more about NYC than the mayor.

 

[fuji]

You keep giving the same answer. i.e., you know more about NYC than the mayor.

I never said that. I said he is a biased anti gun partisan who has made an obviously false statement, and I have given proof that it is false.

You have given no evidence. You have bowed down in religious fervour and said Bloomberg is infallible, you think if the facts say he is wrong, the facts must be wrong.

I do not believe Bloomberg is credible on this issue. No doubt he knows a lot of things about being a politician in NYC and about the workings of city government but he is not a criminologist and his lay opinion on gun crime is EVIDENTLY wrong.

 

[shack]

I never said that. I said he is a biased anti gun partisan who has made an obviously false statement, and I have given proof that it is false.

I had earlier stated that based on your position he either didn't know what he was talking about or that he is lying. If the latter is your position then I again ask why is it that you are the only voice calling him out on his lies. Surely somebody in NYC would have the same insight as you but I have not heard of any. Seems unusual to me.

I have not seen credible proof from you. You trot out the terms affluence and gentrification. These are theories, not proof in and of themselves just by stating them. How much has the rate decreased due to gentrification? How much is due to the poor moving out of Manhattan? How much (little in your opinion) is due to his gun policies. If you have studies specifically related to those, with specific numbers attached then you may have some actual proof.

You say the decrease was at a larger rate before his policies, but with his policies they are still going down but at a lower rate. It's like a brand new company claiming they are fastest growing in their industry. Well of course they are because they started with nothing and any increase is disproportionately large stated percentage wise. As the company gets bigger they cannot sustain triple digit increases.

When there was so much crime/violence prior, a lawman could sneeze and catch a dozen perps, like shooting fish in a barrel. Now that crime/violence has decreased so much, they are not as easy to track down and so the numbers decrease because there are less criminals to catch.

You have your theories, I have mine. Proof? Neither of us has absolutely proved anything.

You have given no evidence. You have bowed down in religious fervour and said Bloomberg is infallible, you think if the facts say he is wrong, the facts must be wrong.

Think of me as the messenger. I make no claims about specific policies, I just reported what he said. As I said earlier, Bloomberg made the claims. If you think they are false, it is incumbent upon you to prove they are false. IMO, you have not yet done so. If you are adamant that you have definitely proven his mistakes we will just continue to go around in circles. I'm saying that he has results and his claims of how the results were achieved are credible to me based on his position and the support of the citizenry of NYC.

I never said he's infallible (he was wrong to try to proceed with the NYC marathon so soon after the hurricane). I just happen to believe he is correct in this one particular case. After that I'll judge him on a case by case basis. No generalizations.

I do not believe Bloomberg is credible on this issue. No doubt he knows a lot of things about being a politician in NYC and about the workings of city government but he is not a criminologist and his lay opinion on gun crime is EVIDENTLY wrong.

And the president is not a soldier but he is the commander in chief and a credible one at that. Don't you think Bloomberg has top notch criminologist advisors on his staff that he can rely on.

I have the utmost respect for your debating abilities, so to see that weak reasoning from you is somewhat disheartening.

 

[fuji]

I had earlier stated that based on your position he either didn't know what he was talking about or that he is lying.

Let's be clear, you were extremely dishonest. You tried to move the debate to "fuji thinks he knows more about New York than its mayor does", as if knowing about New York is the same thing as knowing about the effectiveness of gun control in New York, and as if I had asked you to take my word for anything. I provided you with data that shows that his specific claims about gun control are just flat out wrong.

You haven't even given a single reason why Bloomberg's opinion should be considered in any way relevant. He's a partisan, biased, anti-gun politician. His views aren't supported by the data and his opinion hasn't been peer reviewed by anyone. He says all kinds of nonsense, and he may very well be a great mayor, who knows a hell of a lot about New York, all the while talking utter and complete nonsense on gun control.

I am happy to continue this debate with you but I would expect a little more honesty in the future, from you.

 

[fuji]

You trot out the terms affluence and gentrification. These are theories, not proof in and of themselves just by stating them. How much has the rate decreased due to gentrification? How much is due to the poor moving out of Manhattan? How much (little in your opinion) is due to his gun policies. If you have studies specifically related to those, with specific numbers attached then you may have some actual proof.

Here is a good introduction, it's one article of many out there, gives a good overview, and discusses what most people who study it think the issues are. This one is on the effectiveness of CompStat which is one of the prevailing theories. The others are gentrification, community policing ("broken windows"), and changing demographics--there are very few people who seriously credit gun policy with the reduction of crime in New York, other than politicians who are promoting it. You can see for yourself whether the author winds up supporting CompStat but reading the study overall will give you a good sense of the sorts of issues serious people consider.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/322928/Langan-rel

The drop in crime in New York has been remarkable enough, and NYC a large and important enough city, that the question has been extensively studied. We do not need to take Bloomberg's word for this. I had expected that before you started yammering on about this topic that you would have bothered to google the basics--guess I was wrong.

I find discussions much more productive once everybody gets passed the dueling studies and statistical babble. If we can agree on what the facts are, and if we all understand what the prevailing theories are, and what the evidence for them is, then we can go on to talk intelligently about the topic.

At this moment you appear to be completely ignorant, other than you heard on CNN or somewhere that a guy named Bloomberg has an opinion that gun control is important.

 

[fuji]

Here is another piece to throw in:

-- All sorts of serious crime have shown remarkable drops

Perhaps you can explain why gun control should lead to significant drops in the number of violent rapes where no gun is involved. Also, why has there been a drop in burglaries? It does not seem reasonable to attribute such things to gun control, and yet the rates of these crimes have dropped alongside the homicide rate at roughly the same pace.

The prevailing theories most widely studied in the literature, CompStat on the one hand, changing demographics on the other, both predict a drop in crime in all categories which is what we see. Gun control would presumably impact ONLY crimes involving a gun. Thus as we see that crime across the board is in decline both before and after the gun policies went into effect we can reasonably included that there was NO differential effect from gun policy--which should have affected only crimes involving guns.

 

[shack]

Let's be clear, you were extremely dishonest. You tried to move the debate to "fuji thinks he knows more about New York than its mayor does", as if knowing about New York is the same thing as knowing about the effectiveness of gun control in New York, and as if I had asked you to take my word for anything. I provided you with data that shows that his specific claims about gun control are just flat out wrong.

As far as I know, only fuji claims Bloomberg is ignorant of the reality of the situation or he is outright lying. I've seen nothing out of New York itself that challenges Bloomberg's claims. Nobody there that says he doesn't know what he's talking about or that he is lying through his teeth. If he was lying or making false claims, New Yorkers would be speaking out.

Here in post #87, I left both choices open as to whether he was ignorant or was lying.

If he was supposedly ignorant/didn't know what he was talking about, which I took your position to be, it followed that you claim to know more than he.

Your contention now seems to be that he is well aware of what's happening but is just lying. That is indeed a somewhat different discussion.

Apologies if I misunderstood your position. No dishonesty intended. Not my style. My name does not begin with "g".

 

[shack]

Here is a good introduction, it's one article of many out there, gives a good overview, and discusses what most people who study it think the issues are. This one is on the effectiveness of CompStat which is one of the prevailing theories. The others are gentrification, community policing ("broken windows"), and changing demographics--there are very few people who seriously credit gun policy with the reduction of crime in New York, other than politicians who are promoting it. You can see for yourself whether the author winds up supporting CompStat but reading the study overall will give you a good sense of the sorts of issues serious people consider.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/322928/Langan-rel

The drop in crime in New York has been remarkable enough, and NYC a large and important enough city, that the question has been extensively studied. We do not need to take Bloomberg's word for this. I had expected that before you started yammering on about this topic that you would have bothered to google the basics--guess I was wrong.

I find discussions much more productive once everybody gets passed the dueling studies and statistical babble. If we can agree on what the facts are, and if we all understand what the prevailing theories are, and what the evidence for them is, then we can go on to talk intelligently about the topic.

At this moment you appear to be completely ignorant, other than you heard on CNN or somewhere that a guy named Bloomberg has an opinion that gun control is important.

Interesting study, but I think it asked more questions than it answered.




7
But Did Crime Really Drop in New York City?
Many of the year-to-year declines in crime in New York City occurred in the 1990s, atime when the NYPD was implementing numerous strategies to reduce crime, includingin particular:I. hiring more officers (figure 10 and Appendix table 3)II. re-directing police patrols to combat public disorder (called “broken-windowspolicing”)III. developing closer relationships with the community (“community policing”)IV. strictly enforcing gun laws to reduce firearm crimesV. vigorously enforcing drug lawsVI. practicing strict law enforcement generally (“zero-tolerance policing”)VII. concentrating police sources on problem places and persons (“problem orientedpolicing”), andVIII. introducing CompStat into the overall process of managing NYPD anti-crimestrategies




In 1994, the NYPD pioneered an innovation in policing: CompStat. Crime had beenfalling before 1994, but because the police-recorded fall continued under CompStat, thishighly publicized innovation has been credited with being a major contributor to theamelioration of the crime problem in New York City. Police officials around the worldhave flocked to New York to observe CompStat first-hand, and to carry back what theyhave learned. Versions of CompStat have now been widely adopted in the UnitedStates and have even been embraced by some police agencies abroad. Yet scientificproof of CompStat’s success is hard to find. Moreover, the recorded drop in crime has never been scientifically verified.

They have no conclusive reasons for the drop and are not even sure if the drop is real.

They listed the areas they were trying to deal with but do not even say which ones worked let alone to what extent. They did say other cities were impressed by the results and implemented them in their own jurisdictions as a result.

One other point is that the study ended in 1999 so there is no way to make a valid comparison with the Bloomberg administration and its' policies.

The waters seem as murky as ever on both sides. I don't think there's enough there to sway somebody from one side to the other.

 

[fun-guy]

Did developers buy out people from the Bronx, Harlem and Brooklyn and rebuild those areas into pricier housing for the rich, or are you talking about Manhattan? Most of the homicides are in Brooklyn. Harlem and the Bronx, with Brooklyn being the worst. Can't imagine developers rebuilding in these areas and more affluent people living there anytime soon.


http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

You will note from this map that homicides have been on the decline from 2006 to present and 69% of the homicides are due to firearms.

Yes, those areas are gentrifying, the lowest income bracket everywhere in New York is rising and the poorest have been increasingly moved further and further our. Certainly there are still poor areas, but nowhere near as many nor as poor s 30 years ago.

No point to reply to the rest of your post as it was based on the false premise that only Manhattan had gentrified.

Why won't you comment on the homicides in the various New York areas as per the link above? What false premise that Manhattan had gentrified? The map in the link shows the homicide rate by guns in each of the New York boroughs over the past 9 years and in each of those years Brooklyn, Bronx and Harlem leads in homicide, way more than Manhattan.

Do you have any stats or backup to your claim that developers are now buying up and redeveloping areas in the three worst areas of New York despite the gun homicide and crime rate in general is still the highest in all of the greater New York area?

And to what areas are the poorest now being moved further out to? Yonkers to the north, or God forbid New Rochelle, the home of the Dick Van Dyke show, lol? Queens? Certainly not Staten Island or Long Island.

I haven't been in New York in a couple of years but will contact some acquaintances and associates down there who will give me the scoop of what's been happening in real estate in the last couple of years, and no it's not Trump, lol.