The Magic Cafe Forums - An entirely predictable result

The Magic Cafe Forum Index :: Not very magical, still... :: An entirely predictable result (0 Likes)

Good to here.

Go to page 1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Woland Special user 680 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 02:43 am 0 Shocking. A reasonable policy actual produces reasonable results: Quote: In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982. It happens time and time again, actually. More at the link.
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 03:04 am 0 Lott's article is much less than convincing. For one thing, he is cherry picking. Apparently he is comparing the first six months of 2011 to the first six months of 2008. But 2008 was an unusually bad year. Look at the numbers below. Why not use 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007? Or a five year average of all of them? Second, he is ignoring the long term trend of declining murder rates in Chicago. That probably accounts for MOST of the decline. Murders in Chicago: 1990: 851 1991: 927 1992: 943 1993: 931 1994: 929 1995: 827 1996: 789 1997: 759 1998: 704 1999: 641 2000: 628 2001: 666 2002: 647 2003: 598 2004: 448 2005: 449 2006: 467 2007: 442 2008: 510 2009: 458 2010: 435 Thirdly, did he adjust for the shrinking population of Chicago over the same period? I'm going to guess that he did not. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424......936.html CHICAGO—A larger-than-expected exodus over the past 10 years reduced the population of Chicago to a level not seen in nearly a century. "The U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday that during the decade ended in 2010, Chicago's population fell 6.9% to 2,695,598 people, fewer than the 2.7 million reported back in 1920." Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 03:10 am 0 One more thing. Look at the numbers above. Even in light of the long term downward trend in murders in Chicago AND the declining population, there were MORE murders in the first full year (2009) after the repeal of that gun law than there were in 2004, 2005, or 2007. Just saying. I'm not saying that Lott's conclusion is wrong ... I don't know ... but the argument he presents for it is extremely weak. Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 03:52 am 0 Quote: On 2011-10-03 23:04, balducci wrote: Lott's article is much less than convincing. For one thing, he is cherry picking. Apparently he is comparing the first six months of 2011 to the first six months of 2008. But 2008 was an unusually bad year. Look at the numbers below. Why not use 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007? Or a five year average of all of them? Second, he is ignoring the long term trend of declining murder rates in Chicago. That probably accounts for MOST of the decline. Murders in Chicago: 1990: 851 1991: 927 1992: 943 1993: 931 1994: 929 1995: 827 1996: 789 1997: 759 1998: 704 1999: 641 2000: 628 2001: 666 2002: 647 2003: 598 2004: 448 2005: 449 2006: 467 2007: 442 2008: 510 2009: 458 2010: 435 Thirdly, did he adjust for the shrinking population of Chicago over the same period? I'm going to guess that he did not. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424......936.html CHICAGO—A larger-than-expected exodus over the past 10 years reduced the population of Chicago to a level not seen in nearly a century. "The U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday that during the decade ended in 2010, Chicago's population fell 6.9% to 2,695,598 people, fewer than the 2.7 million reported back in 1920." It wouldn't surprise me at all if Lott were doing a little cherry-picking, but conversely, it seems that you are, as well. Lott references the first 6 months of 2011 with the first 6 months of 2010, "when handgun ownership was illegal" in Chicago. And notes that the drop was the biggest in almost 30 years. The last half-year when they were illegal, and the immediate half-year after they weren't. What does the "decade-long" population drop starting in 2001 have to do with the change from 2010 to 2011? As for the long-term trend, the murder rate has dropped by about 50% over 20 years, for a linear average drop of about 2.5% per year; I don't know that that justifies the claim that it "probably accounts for most" of a 14% drop. It looks like in 6 of the 20 years, there was a drop of 7% of more. In 6 others, the number of murders increased. It seems awfully optimistic (or something-istic) to assume that trend is more relevant than a very large decline in the one year before and after the ban was rescinded. As Lott himself says in the article, it's not proof. But it's evidence. Lott obviously has his biases, and I won't disagree that the evidence probably isn't as good as he suggests. But it's not as bad as you suggest, either. "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 03:58 am 0 Quote: On 2011-10-03 23:10, balducci wrote: One more thing. Look at the numbers above. Even in light of the long term downward trend in murders in Chicago AND the declining population, there were MORE murders in the first full year (2009) after the repeal of that gun law than there were in 2004, 2005, or 2007. Just saying. I'm not saying that Lott's conclusion is wrong ... I don't know ... but the argument he presents for it is extremely weak. Nice thought, but unfortunately, Chicago's handgun ban was still in effect in that high-murder year, 2009. It was struck down in 2010. Just saying. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-28/justi......PM:CRIME "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 04:13 am 0 Quote: On 2011-10-03 23:52, LobowolfXXX wrote: [1] It wouldn't surprise me at all if Lott were doing a little cherry-picking, but conversely, it seems that you are, as well. Lott references the first 6 months of 2011 with the first 6 months of 2010, "when handgun ownership was illegal" in Chicago. And notes that the drop was the biggest in almost 30 years. The last half-year when they were illegal, and the immediate half-year after they weren't. [2] What does the "decade-long" population drop starting in 2001 have to do with the change from 2010 to 2011? [3] As for the long-term trend, the murder rate has dropped by about 50% over 20 years, for a linear average drop of about 2.5% per year; I don't know that that justifies the claim that it "probably accounts for most" of a 14% drop. It looks like in 6 of the 20 years, there was a drop of 7% of more. In 6 others, the number of murders increased. It seems awfully optimistic (or something-istic) to assume that trend is more relevant than a very large decline in the one year before and after the ban was rescinded. As Lott himself says in the article, it's not proof. But it's evidence. Lott obviously has his biases, and I won't disagree that the evidence probably isn't as good as he suggests. But it's not as bad as you suggest, either. [1] How did I possibly cherry pick? I presented 20+ years worth of numbers and made the point that picking one year over another is rather arbitrary and dramatically affects the comparison. I used full year numbers as that was all I could find. [2] How is a steady population decline not relevant? If I had the single year change I would have reported it, but I think you only do a census there every 10 years. [3] Well, it is more complicated a model than a simple linear trend. The point is, Lott has simply ignored a couple of major confounding factors. Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 04:21 am 0 Quote: On 2011-10-03 23:58, LobowolfXXX wrote: Quote: On 2011-10-03 23:10, balducci wrote: One more thing. Look at the numbers above. Even in light of the long term downward trend in murders in Chicago AND the declining population, there were MORE murders in the first full year (2009) after the repeal of that gun law than there were in 2004, 2005, or 2007. Just saying. I'm not saying that Lott's conclusion is wrong ... I don't know ... but the argument he presents for it is extremely weak. Nice thought, but unfortunately, Chicago's handgun ban was still in effect in that high-murder year, 2009. It was struck down in 2010. Just saying. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-28/justi......PM:CRIME My bad about the date confusion. I confused some of his Washington points with his Chicago discussion. However, these are the sorted differences in murder rates from year to year: -76 -68 -38 -18 -16 -1 2 12 13 19 25 30 33 38 49 52 55 63 102 150 Taking these (the size of the random year to year change) into account, any of the last 7 years (possibly excluding 2008) are pretty much indistinguishable. Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 05:25 am 0 With respect to which year you pick, the rather obvious choice is the consecutive-year choice that Lott cited - the last year before the law went into effect and the first year after it did. Among other things, this minimizes the effects (if any) of, say, a decade-long population decline, because that decline was already built into his pre-repeal figure. It sounds inconsistent to me to say that the population reduction is relevant, but picking any two years is arbitrary. I may be missing something obvious, but it seems that ESPECIALLY if the population decline is relevant, it may be important to pick the most recent pre-repeal year to minimize its effects (as well as the effects of other possibly confounding variables). Other things being equal, 2010 is more similar to 2011 than 2004 is. With respect to the population issue, the city lost 6.9% over 10 years, bringing it down to about 2.7 million people in 2010. That puts it at about 2.9 million at the beginning of the decade. So the city lost an average of about 20,000 people a year. It looks like about what, 650 murders a year (ok, I eyeballed that one), so you're getting about a murder for every 4,300 people or so. So if the population decline continued into 2011, which is purely speculative, than maybe it's responsible for what, 5 murders over the year, or 2.5 over the 6-month period in the study. So call it 12.75% instead of 14%. That takes away a very small percentage of the drop. Moreover, while he may not have accounted for the population decline (which we don't know took place), that effect is minimized in his comparison of the 2010-2011 decline, because we don't know that he took ANY population changes into account. What he's mostly doing with the 14% figure is comparing it to percentage drops in other years, and we know that if anything, some of THOSE years benefited from the population drop that took place in the decade ending in 2010. What's the statistical basis for the claim that the long-term declining murder rate in Chicago "probably accounts for most of the decline" between 2010 and 2011? This seems to beg the question. If things are getting better every year, great, but why are they getting "more better" right after the ban was repealed? This offhand comment on your part, even if true, certainly also ignores a "confounding variable" (the repeal) and assumes its insignificance. Your choice to sort the murder declines by raw number, and not percentage, is not "cherry picking" per se, but has the same net effect - it's a conscious choice to present evidence in a favorable way. Using the raw numbers from the past - when murders were more commonplace - magnifies the comparison years and minimizes the 2010-2011 decline. As you said about Lott's article, I'm not saying that your conclusion is wrong; it does seem to my untrained eye, though, that you've chosen to present evidence in such a way as to be generally unfavorable to him. "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 05:52 am 0 Quote: On 2011-10-04 01:25, LobowolfXXX wrote: Your choice to sort the murder declines by raw number, and not percentage, is not "cherry picking" per se, but has the same net effect - it's a conscious choice to present evidence in a favorable way. Using the raw numbers from the past - when murders were more commonplace - magnifies the comparison years and minimizes the 2010-2011 decline. No. I am not a lawyer, I do not dissemble. The numbers were reported that way for the sake of clarity and so that their range and variability was clearly apparent. It is pretty common among statisticians and those who work with numbers to report sorted statistics. Anyone can look at the numbers and identify which number corresponds to which year. Besides which, if you actually plot the differences year by year you will observe that they look to be pretty randomly and uniformly distributed. The R^2 number is only about 1.1%. Note that the first yearly difference represents a large increase, the next a small increase, and the next two years have small decreases. If anything, they actually make the declines in recent years look better and not worse. Quote: On 2011-10-04 01:25, LobowolfXXX wrote: If things are getting better every year, great, but why are they getting "more better" right after the ban was repealed? This offhand comment on your part, even if true, certainly also ignores a "confounding variable" (the repeal) and assumes its insignificance. It is interesting to note that a NEW gun law was imposed in Chicago two weeks after the old ban was repealed. Did it have an effect? Again, this is something I think Lott ignored in his article. http://abcnews.go.com/US/chicagos-tough-......11144125 And, FWIW, the former Chicago police Superintendent in Chicago attributed the big declines in 2010 to smarter policing, the use of technology, and higher incarceration rates in the 1990s. The new Superintendent credits his and the mayor's strategy to move more police officers onto beats in high-crime neighborhoods. They may or may not be right but, again, there are many, many confounding factors. Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 06:27 am 0 Quote: On 2011-10-04 01:52, balducci wrote: Quote: On 2011-10-04 01:25, LobowolfXXX wrote: Your choice to sort the murder declines by raw number, and not percentage, is not "cherry picking" per se, but has the same net effect - it's a conscious choice to present evidence in a favorable way. Using the raw numbers from the past - when murders were more commonplace - magnifies the comparison years and minimizes the 2010-2011 decline. No. I am not a lawyer, I do not dissemble. The numbers were reported that way for the sake of clarity and so that their range and variability was clearly apparent. It is pretty common among statisticians and those who work with numbers to report sorted statistics. Anyone can look at the numbers and identify which number corresponds to which year. Quote: On 2011-10-04 01:25, LobowolfXXX wrote: If things are getting better every year, great, but why are they getting "more better" right after the ban was repealed? This offhand comment on your part, even if true, certainly also ignores a "confounding variable" (the repeal) and assumes its insignificance. It is interesting to note that a NEW gun law was imposed in Chicago two weeks after the old ban was repealed. Did it have an effect? Again, this is something I think Lott ignored in his article. http://abcnews.go.com/US/chicagos-tough-......11144125 And, FWIW, the former Chicago police Superintendent in Chicago attributed the big declines in 2010 to smarter policing, the use of technology, and higher incarceration rates in the 1990s. The new Superintendent credits his and the mayor's strategy to move more police officers onto beats in high-crime neighborhoods. They may or may not be right but, again, there are many, many confounding factors. Anyone can glance at the numbers and figure out which raw changes go to which particular years, but not everyone can (or will, anyway) prorate the 38-murder decrease between 1995 and 1996 (when there were about 800 per year) and the 25-murder decrease from 2005-2006 (when there were about 450). As for lawyers, we just ask questions...it's you expert witnesses who do all the dissembling. As for the police chief thinking it was smart policing and the politician thinking it was smart politicking, well...uhhh...just lol will suffice, I guess. ******************** 5003. Witnesses A witness is a person who has knowledge related to this case. You will have to decide whether you believe each witness and how important each witness's testimony is to the case. You may believe all, part, or none of a witness's testimony. In deciding whether to believe a witness's testimony, you may consider, among other factors, the following: (d) Did the witness have any reason to say something that was not true? Did the witness show any bias or prejudice? Did the witness have a personal relationship with any of the parties involved in the case? Does the witness have a personal stake in how this case is decided? ************************ (California Civil Jury Instructions) Police officers (and admins), of course, have a rather obvious bias (aside from tooting their own horns); they're frequently in confrontations, and would prefer to be the only ones with guns. Not coincidentally, this attitude is shared by most armed criminals. Haven't read the article about the new law yet; looking forward to checking that out. "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 06:29 am 0 Quote: On 2011-10-04 01:52, balducci wrote: And, FWIW, the former Chicago police Superintendent in Chicago attributed the big declines in 2010 to smarter policing, the use of technology, and higher incarceration rates in the 1990s. That kinda makes sense, since handguns were still illegal for much of 2010. What does he think of the bigger decline in 2011? "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 06:41 am 0 The January-June homicide figures for 2005-2011: 2005: 210 2006: 201 2007: 205 2008: 228 2009: 203 2010: 216 2011: 186 I'm curious to see what the full-year 2011 numbers look like. "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 06:42 am 0 It was a different Superintendent back in 2010 versus now. Another confounding effect. Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 06:53 am 0 I don't think leaving the new law out of his article is self-serving. If anything, mention of it would strengthen his ultimate argument - i.e. the drop in 2011 shows that being able to legally have a loaded weapon in the house is a deterrent to crime, and if they hadn't passed THIS law shortly after the ban was repealed, the effect would have been even greater... "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Woland Special user 680 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 11:06 am 0 Let's not lose sight of the fact that what happened in Chicago is only one example of a phenomenon that has been observed repeatedly over the past 5 to 10 years. And let's not focus only on murders. From the article: Quote: If you compare the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2008, the same time immediately preceding the Supreme Court's late June "Heller" decision, murders have now fallen by thirty-four percent. Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes. Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%. Just as with right-to-carry laws, when law-abiding citizens have guns some criminals stop carrying theirs. The benefit could have been even greater. Getting a handgun permit in Chicago and Washington is an expensive and difficult process, meaning only the relatively wealthy go through it. Through the end of May only 2,144 people had handguns registered in Chicago. That limits the benefits from the Supreme Court decisions since it is the poor who are the most likely victims of crime and who benefit the most from being able to protect themselves. It is a widely observed phenomenon. Again, from the article: Quote: Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise. Gun control advocates explained the huge increases in murder and violent crime rates Chicago and Washington by saying that those bans weren’t fair tests unless the entire country adopted a ban. Yet, even island nations, such as Ireland and the U.K. -- with no neighbors to blame -- have seen increases in murder rates. The same horror stories about blood in the streets have surrounded the debate over concealed handguns. Some said it was necessary to ban guns in public places. The horror stories never came true and the data is now so obvious that as of November, only one state, Illinois, will still completely ban law-abiding from carrying concealed handguns. Forty-one states will have either permissive right-to-carry laws or no longer even require a permit. The regulations that still exist in Chicago and Washington primarily disarm the most likely victims of crime. Hopefully, even the poor in these areas will soon also have more of an opportunity to defend themselves, too. Whole books have been written about the issue. Besides John Lott's book, I think that Professor Janet Malcolm's studies of the effects of sweeping gun confiscation in England are well worth considering.
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 03:09 pm 0 Quote: On 2011-10-04 07:06, Woland wrote: Whole books have been written about the issue. Besides John Lott's book, I think that Professor Janet Malcolm's studies of the effects of sweeping gun confiscation in England are well worth considering. Woland, we both know that there is extensive research and publications on both sides of the issue. Lott's umbrella statement "Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise." simply isn't true. (And even if was true that there was a short term rise, perhaps the more important longer term effect is overall beneficial?) From the context, it seems to me that he is talking about gun control laws being enacted, not guns being banned outright. Consider: 1. In Canada, the registration portion of the Firearms Act was implemented in 2001 and became mandatory in 2003. Canadian police reported a 5.8% drop in murders that year. And the lowest murder rate since 1961. 2. When Parliament enacted Bill C-51 and amended the Criminal Code requiring individuals to obtain a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) in 1977 ... the murder rate dropped the next year. 3. When Parliament strengthened the screening provisions for FAC applicants by introducing new legislation (Bill C-17) in 1991 ... the murder rate dropped the next year. Smarter people than I have pointed out major failings in Lott's research when it comes to hot button social issues like gun control. Flawed models, incorrect coding, systemic bias, cherry picked data, and reams of missing / lost survey data, to name just a few of the failings. Goodness, he makes climate researchers look good! Believe it or not, I'm far from anti-gun. Lott may be correct ... I really don't know ... but in my eyes his arguments are not that convincing because of the above. Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 03:33 pm 0 One thing I think he's spot-on about is his statement about how much media coverage there would have been had the law been passed and the murder rate increased. "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 03:35 pm 0 Quote: On 2011-10-04 11:09, balducci wrote: Believe it or not, I'm far from anti-gun. Do you think that people should be legally allowed to own and keep loaded handguns in their houses? "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 03:48 pm 0 Quote: On 2011-10-04 11:35, LobowolfXXX wrote: Quote: On 2011-10-04 11:09, balducci wrote: Believe it or not, I'm far from anti-gun. Do you think that people should be legally allowed to own and keep loaded handguns in their houses? In what country? The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts	Posted: Oct 4, 2011 04:02 pm 0 [quote]On 2011-10-04 11:48, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: Quote: On 2011-10-04 11:35, LobowolfXXX wrote: Quote: On 2011-10-04 11:09, balducci wrote: Believe it or not, I'm far from anti-gun. Do you think that people should be legally allowed to own and keep loaded handguns in their houses? In what country? You can split the answer up, if necessary. I didn't have a particular country in mind. "Torture doesn't work" lol Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."