If that were the case wouldn't the article have said that (and if it is there, could you quote it for us)? Or is your analysis of the unprovided data greater than the authors'?
That's completely different than what you've said to this point so I guess it's time for me to stop paying any attention.
I don't know what you're talking about. The very first thing I said was that I think it's cute when people start discussing the specifics of armed revolution in America. I didn't think it required much effort to comprehend why. But whatever. Guess I was wrong about that.
My data is the authors, • Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks. • Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks. • In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free. You seem to want to read more into than there is to go off. It may not be sufficient for you but barring some other added variable it looks like
The authors analyzed themselves? Interesting. Whenever someone copy/pastes three sub-points but then omits the subsequent fourth (• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black) I tend to be skeptical of their bias/agenda. I didn't read into what they wrote, I just kept reading. For those interested in what was omitted by Waterboy: Not surprisingly, you also failed to include: Character limit. TL;DR: You're exaggerating uncertainties and making baseless claims. No one's arguing that SYG sets absolute racial preferences so stop with the strawmen.
The scariest thing in that article is that it took prosecutors two months to decide to try the guy who executed two people in front of a surveillance camera in the Chili's parking lot. Seriously, two months? What is wrong with Florida? You shoot two unarmed people on camera and it takes the prosecutors two months to figure out that you murdered them? One with his hands in the air at the time he was shot? This is the kind of story that tells me that letting people run around with loaded guns is just asking for psychos or normal people caught up in the heat of the moment to kill people who never should have been in danger. I don't care if some or even most people would never get to that point. Some will get to that point and it is more dangerous having them run around with guns than having nobody run around with guns. If the two unarmed guys had guns that parking lot would have looked like the OK Corral with bullets flying all over the place and lots of people placed at risk.
Sorry that I failed to include the 4th bullet point which reinforced that in cases so far in Florida it does not seem as if race has had any bearing. You asked I posted about the cases involving mixed races showing that both races have been cleared at pretty much the same rate. You seem to want to bring the authors bias into the picture. You state I am making baseless claims by posting statistics that seem to enforce that, as yet, there is no discernible bias when it comes to SYG cases. If you look at the percentage of all felonies in Florida and the associated acquittals, convictions, etc. you may see there is a higher percentage difference when it comes to race as opposed to SYG cases yet you want to fall back on the authors reference to those statistics. Basically the author is saying, we have these statistics that show that in SYG cases the races seem to be relatively the same in how they are acquitted/convicted but because statistics from completely unrelated cases tell us something different we are going to question the first set of statistics that are actually relevant.
Yes, every story that I see about one supposedly law-abiding citizen shooting another supposedly law-abiding citizen tells me that if it weren't for the gun in the situation nobody would have gotten shot. Our homicide rate is high compared to the rest of the western world because we've ignored one of the leading causes of homicides in our calculations: the guns that people use to shoot other people. Our homicide rate isn't higher because one gang member executed two other gang members in the parking lot of a Chili's after an argument inside. It's not higher because one neighborhood watch gang member executed another gang member he thought he saw walking in the wrong neighborhood. It's not higher because a 5 year old gang member shot his 2 year old gang member sister in the living room of the family home. It's not higher because a paternal gang member shot his 13 year old daughter gang member as she jumped out of a closet to surprise him when he came home. It's not higher because a nutty gang member shot and killed a bunch of gang members at a political meeting of gang member Giffords of congress. It's not higher because a crazy gang member shot a bunch of other gang members in a movie theatre in Colorado. It's not higher because a sick gang member shot 20 6 year old gang members in a schoolroom in Connecticut. It's not higher because two teenage gang members shot a bunch of other gang members at Columbine High School. Our homicide rate is higher than the rest or the western world because we let people own and carry guns and a substantial percentage of the people that we let do this are not fit to own or carry a gun, and so they shoot people when things go wrong or when they're having a bad day or just on the freaking spur of the moment because they lost their temper over something trivial. Guns are the problem. Anybody who doesn't understand that isn't looking at the actual problem and the results that it produces.
No reason for you to paraphrase what's been posted in context, especially considering how inaccurately you describe what it says. What are you talking about? You seem to be making $hit up. I'll put it in terms you can actually understand: the authors basically said they can't reach a conclusion due in part to exogenous variables. The authors did not reach a definitive conclusion so stop reiterating that lie. No. Basically the author is saying that the sample size is way too small to reach a conclusion.
Urban cities is where the majority of our gun violence is coming from. Poverty always correlates with crime. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/01/growing-divide-urban-gun-violence/4328/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/ Cities with the Highest Rates of Total Gun-Related Deaths (per 100,000 people) [table="head]Rank|City|City Rate|Metro Rate|City/Metro Ratio 1|New Orleans|69.1|32.8|2.1 2|Detroit|41.4|14.8|2.8 3|Las Vegas|36.9|17.6|2.1 4|Miami|33.5|11.7|2.9 5|Baltimore|33.1|15.2|2.2 6|St. Louis|31.1|14.0|2.2 7|Richmond|29.9|15.7|1.9 8|Memphis|25.5|19.8|1.3 9|Cleveland|25.2|10.9|2.3 10|Philadelphia|24.3|12.4|2.0 [/table] From 2007 - 2011, according to the FBI.gov, there were 22,407 murders in the united states that were not caused by a gun. That was about 33% of the murders in this country over that span. People will still be killing each other even if there aren't any guns.
So what you're saying is that from 2007-2011 two thirds of the murders in this country were committed with a gun and over 40,000 people died to the hands of a murderer with a gun. Which correlates pretty well with the 75% increase in homicides in the US compared to most western nations. You're not making a saving argument here, you're confirming the original one.
So I guess you're of the belief that all those murders just go away if the guns do and then we can start eliminating the knifes? Look at how many people we having living in urban areas compared to the countries you're referring to. That's the difference.
so make guns illegal, I am sure all the criminals who are carrying illegal guns will turn them in. and I am sure they won't take advantage of the fact that all the households have been disarmed.
