Happy 500th.

Chrissy wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

Chrissy wrote:I hate to be a poo poo head, but new orleans is 67% black while chicago is only 37%.

chicago profile
http://www.idcide.com/citydata/il/chicago.htm
^^ and it looks like they gave up on counting murders.

new orleans profile
http://www.idcide.com/citydata/la/new-orleans.htm

So unless someone can give me better data than this, it appears race isnt the factor, is it gun laws?

as far as my opinion on this goes, it stands to reason places where the population carries guns has less violent crime.

80% of the murders in chicago this year involved blacks.
With them being 37% of the population, what does that say?

I dont know. I havnt seen that data either. Im strictly trying to stay statistical here.

87% of all percentages are made up on the spot and incorrect.

Ghandi wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:So you're saying it's black peoples fault. I won't argue with you.

How on earth does one read the following...

Well, yes, there are a lot of black people in both Chicago and in New Orleans, so you can't attribute fluctuations in homicide to the presence of black people.

...and conclude that what they just read means "It's black people's fault"?



One more time, this time in mono-syllabic phrases that ghandi can understand.

You give me state with strong gun law. You show me that state has 500 kill crimes.

I give you state with lax gun law. I show you that state has 5 time rate of kill crime than state you give me.

Both state have a lot of blacks, so you can not say that the gap in the kill crime rate in each state is due to blacks.

(The above has a gunning-fog index of 5.5, so assuming you have at least completed 5th grade, you should have no problem grasping this one.)

I still see the only common denominator as black. Just like you posted.
Regardless of gun laws, the blacks are going to shoot eachother. You made your point.

Perhaps a different approach is needed here, as you seem to struggle with the idea of control variables.

Murders per-capita:

Chicago - 15.2
New Orleans - 72.8

Ghandi, why are there almost 5 times as many homicides per capita in New Orleans than there are in Chicago? You can openly carry a gun in New Orleans if you are over 18 - no permit required. And, according to you, gun laws are strict in Chicago. So what gives? Why the disparity in homicide rates?

Tempreature. chicago has snow days and we all know that most of the murders in chicago are committed in the summer. It's always summer in new orleans. That's my final answer.

But shouldn't New Orleans be one of the safest places around, with people able to openly carry weapons? Shouldn't that fact correlate with a very low rate of homicide?

Chrissy wrote:I hate to be a poo poo head, but new orleans is 67% black while chicago is only 37%.

chicago profile
http://www.idcide.com/citydata/il/chicago.htm
^^ and it looks like they gave up on counting murders.

new orleans profile
http://www.idcide.com/citydata/la/new-orleans.htm

So unless someone can give me better data than this, it appears race isnt the factor, is it gun laws?

as far as my opinion on this goes, it stands to reason places where the population carries guns has less violent crime.

also, please give the link to your data.

Another comparison:

http://www.idcide.com/citydata/mo/kansas-city.htm
http://www.idcide.com/citydata/il/chicago.htm

Kansas City and Chicago

Kansas City murders per capita: 21.1
Chicago murders per capita: 15.2

Kansas City black population %: 31
Chicago black population %: 37

No permit is required to purchase a gun in Missouri.
No registration is required on guns in Missouri.
No owners license is required on guns in Missouri.
There are no laws restricting "assault weapons" in Missouri.
There are no NFA weapons restricted in Missouri.
The state law pre-empt any local gun restrictions in Missouri.

And yet there is more homicide in Kansas City than there is in Chicago? How could that possibly be? With the lax gun laws of Missouri, shouldn't Kansas City be significantly safer than Chicago? How is it that the homicide rate is 38.8% higher in Kansas City than it is in Chicago - a sprawling metropolis with more black people to boot?

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:So you're saying it's black peoples fault. I won't argue with you.

How on earth does one read the following...

Well, yes, there are a lot of black people in both Chicago and in New Orleans, so you can't attribute fluctuations in homicide to the presence of black people.

...and conclude that what they just read means "It's black people's fault"?



One more time, this time in mono-syllabic phrases that ghandi can understand.

You give me state with strong gun law. You show me that state has 500 kill crimes.

I give you state with lax gun law. I show you that state has 5 time rate of kill crime than state you give me.

Both state have a lot of blacks, so you can not say that the gap in the kill crime rate in each state is due to blacks.

(The above has a gunning-fog index of 5.5, so assuming you have at least completed 5th grade, you should have no problem grasping this one.)

I still see the only common denominator as black. Just like you posted.
Regardless of gun laws, the blacks are going to shoot eachother. You made your point.

Perhaps a different approach is needed here, as you seem to struggle with the idea of control variables.

Murders per-capita:

Chicago - 15.2
New Orleans - 72.8

Ghandi, why are there almost 5 times as many homicides per capita in New Orleans than there are in Chicago? You can openly carry a gun in New Orleans if you are over 18 - no permit required. And, according to you, gun laws are strict in Chicago. So what gives? Why the disparity in homicide rates?

Tempreature. chicago has snow days and we all know that most of the murders in chicago are committed in the summer. It's always summer in new orleans. That's my final answer.

But shouldn't New Orleans be one of the safest places around, with people able to openly carry weapons? Shouldn't that fact correlate with a very low rate of homicide?

The people that can legally open carry aren't the ones getting shot.

Ghandi wrote:The people that can legally open carry aren't the ones getting shot.

Did you just pull this out of your ass? Anyone over the age of 18 can legally, openly-carry a handgun in the state of Louisiana. Are you saying that only people under the age of 18 are getting killed in New Orleans?

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:The people that can legally open carry aren't the ones getting shot.

Did you just pull this out of your ass? Anyone over the age of 18 can legally, openly-carry a handgun in the state of Louisiana. Are you saying that only people under the age of 18 are getting killed in New Orleans?

You can not carry a gun if you are a convicted felon. And a few other convictions.

Ghandi wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:The people that can legally open carry aren't the ones getting shot.

Did you just pull this out of your ass? Anyone over the age of 18 can legally, openly-carry a handgun in the state of Louisiana. Are you saying that only people under the age of 18 are getting killed in New Orleans?

You can not carry a gun if you are a convicted felon. And a few other convictions.

Even convicted felons can openly carry guns in Louisiana, so long as 10 years has elapsed since the completion of their sentence.

So are you now saying that the only people that ever get killed in Louisiana are either 1) felons for whom 10 years has not elapsed since their sentence completion and 2) people under the age of 18?

This is what I find to be so hilarious about today's ghandi-type conservative. Completely making shit up is quite literally part of their learning process. I guarantee you that this has been ghandi's thought process from the start of this thread to the current post:

1) See article about homicide in Chicago, and have no grasp on the concept of "per capita". Assume this must validate one of your parroted talking points.

2) Suggest a correlation between the homicide rate that you don't understand and gun laws.

3) Be shown the case of New Orleans that blows said correlation out of the water.

4) Not comprehend what was shown and blame black people.

5) Read dumbed down version of the case of New Orleans.

6) Completely make shit up.

7) Read something that suggests your made-up shit is completely silly and unrealistic.

8 ) Completely make more shit up.

Isn't this about right, ghandi? By a show of hands, who here thinks ghandi did any sort of research before he came up with the idea that "The people that can legally open carry aren't the ones getting shot."?

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:The people that can legally open carry aren't the ones getting shot.

Did you just pull this out of your ass? Anyone over the age of 18 can legally, openly-carry a handgun in the state of Louisiana. Are you saying that only people under the age of 18 are getting killed in New Orleans?

You can not carry a gun if you are a convicted felon. And a few other convictions.

Even convicted felons can openly carry guns in Louisiana, so long as 10 years has elapsed since the completion of their sentence.

So are you now saying that the only people that ever get killed in Louisiana are either 1) felons for whom 10 years has not elapsed since their sentence completion and 2) people under the age of 18?

This is what I find to be so hilarious about today's ghandi-type conservative. Completely making shit up is quite literally part of their learning process. I guarantee you that this has been ghandi's thought process from the start of this thread to the current post:

1) See article about homicide in Chicago, and have no grasp on the concept of "per capita". Assume this must validate one of your parroted talking points.

2) Suggest a correlation between the homicide rate that you don't understand and gun laws.

3) Be shown the case of New Orleans that blows said correlation out of the water.

4) Not comprehend what was shown and blame black people.

5) Read dumbed down version of the case of New Orleans.

6) Completely make shit up.

7) Read something that suggests your made-up shit is completely silly and unrealistic.

8 ) Completely make more shit up.

Isn't this about right, ghandi? By a show of hands, who here thinks ghandi did any sort of research before he came up with the idea that "The people that can legally open carry aren't the ones getting shot."?

9 ) I don't give a shit because I don't go to new orleans or chicago.
Let the low income, project dwellers, drug dealers, gang bangers........shoot eachother all they want.

boards of FL wrote:

Chrissy wrote:I hate to be a poo poo head, but new orleans is 67% black while chicago is only 37%.

chicago profile
http://www.idcide.com/citydata/il/chicago.htm
^^ and it looks like they gave up on counting murders.

new orleans profile
http://www.idcide.com/citydata/la/new-orleans.htm

So unless someone can give me better data than this, it appears race isnt the factor, is it gun laws?

as far as my opinion on this goes, it stands to reason places where the population carries guns has less violent crime.

also, please give the link to your data.

Another comparison:

http://www.idcide.com/citydata/mo/kansas-city.htm
http://www.idcide.com/citydata/il/chicago.htm

Kansas City and Chicago

Kansas City murders per capita: 21.1
Chicago murders per capita: 15.2

Kansas City black population %: 31
Chicago black population %: 37

No permit is required to purchase a gun in Missouri.
No registration is required on guns in Missouri.
No owners license is required on guns in Missouri.
There are no laws restricting "assault weapons" in Missouri.
There are no NFA weapons restricted in Missouri.
The state law pre-empt any local gun restrictions in Missouri.

And yet there is more homicide in Kansas City than there is in Chicago? How could that possibly be? With the lax gun laws of Missouri, shouldn't Kansas City be significantly safer than Chicago? How is it that the homicide rate is 38.8% higher in Kansas City than it is in Chicago - a sprawling metropolis with more black people to boot?

I see only a 100 murders for kansas in 2009 and 458 for chicago in 2009. But I know what you are doing. You are comparing 3 million people to half a million. When I prefer to look at actual numbers of murders. Youre thinning the heard.

I think there is a serious flaw with that method and it seems to be used a lot. By using that method it also appears that the countries murder rate has decreased over the years. Because our population has increased significantly. Or are murders really on the decline? <<< you tell me.

are you aware that according to data muder rates have gone down in our entire country by half since the 90's?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

and what about florida, since we are cherry picking? We have the most guns of any state and we dont have the murder rate of either of the states involved.

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:Both of these cities have one thing in common.
High percentage of the indigenous people there are on welfare and live in the projects. 80% of the murders in chicago involved low income african Americans.

But your point here is that gun laws don't work and make people less safe, right? You used Chicago as an example to try and support that idea. Haven't I given you a perfect control group?

I recognize you as being openly racist, so I selected another city that has a high population of black people, as I - correctly - knew your comeback would be "but there are alot of black people there". Well, yes, there are a lot of black people in both Chicago and in New Orleans, so you can't attribute fluctuations in homicide to the presence of black people.

You stated that Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws in the US. I gave you a city in a state with the some of the most lax gun laws in the US. It turns out that the murder rate there is 5 times that of Chicago.

Have you - or anyone else - any response to this or are we basically done here?

No you didn't...for it to be accurate you have to consider demography rather than just per capita.....

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:Both of these cities have one thing in common.
High percentage of the indigenous people there are on welfare and live in the projects. 80% of the murders in chicago involved low income african Americans.

But your point here is that gun laws don't work and make people less safe, right? You used Chicago as an example to try and support that idea. Haven't I given you a perfect control group?

I recognize you as being openly racist, so I selected another city that has a high population of black people, as I - correctly - knew your comeback would be "but there are alot of black people there". Well, yes, there are a lot of black people in both Chicago and in New Orleans, so you can't attribute fluctuations in homicide to the presence of black people.

You stated that Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws in the US. I gave you a city in a state with the some of the most lax gun laws in the US. It turns out that the murder rate there is 5 times that of Chicago.

Have you - or anyone else - any response to this or are we basically done here?

No you didn't...for it to be accurate you have to consider demography rather than just per capita.....

Read the next sentence after the one that you bolded where I precisely talk about ghandi's....um... "demography concerns".

Chrissy wrote:I see only a 100 murders for kansas in 2009 and 458 for chicago in 2009. But I know what you are doing. You are comparing 3 million people to half a million. When I prefer to look at actual numbers of murders. Youre thinning the heard.

I think there is a serious flaw with that method and it seems to be used a lot.

I'm not going to spend too much time trying to explain to anyone why comparing raw numbers when there are huge disparities in population is ridiculous. You either understand the need to control for population or you don't.

I'll just leave you with this, Chrissy.

Town A population: 10,000
Town A murders: 5,000
Town A murders per capita: 0.5

Town B population: 10,000,000
Town B murders: 5,001
Town B murders per capita: 0.0005001

Are you telling me, Chrissy, that you would rather live in town A than town B? There are more murders in town B than there are in town A, even though you are 999 times more likely to be murdered if you live in town A.

boards of FL wrote:

Chrissy wrote:I see only a 100 murders for kansas in 2009 and 458 for chicago in 2009. But I know what you are doing. You are comparing 3 million people to half a million. When I prefer to look at actual numbers of murders. Youre thinning the heard.

I think there is a serious flaw with that method and it seems to be used a lot.

Oh my. I'm not going to spend too much time trying to explain to anyone why comparing raw numbers when there are huge disparities in population is ridiculous. You either understand the need to control for population or you don't.

I'll just leave you with this, Chrissy.

Town A population: 10,000
Town A murders: 5,000
Town A murders per capita: 0.5

Town B population: 10,000,000
Town B murders: 5,001
Town B murders per capita: 0.0005001

Are you telling me, Chrissy, that you would rather live in town A than town B? There are more murders in town B than there are in town A, even though you are 999 times more likely to be murdered if you live in town A.

Wouldn't town C be the better place to live?

Well Boards, unfortunately Chicago is catching up...murders are up 35% from last year and Black on Black crime is significantly higher. Claiming racism has nothing to do with the stats. Facts are facts.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-12/news/ct-met-chicago-homicide-demographics-20120712_1_homicide-victims-homicide-numbers-police-data

Joanimaroni wrote:Well Boards, unfortunately Chicago is catching up...murders are up 35% from last year and Black on Black crime is significantly higher. Claiming racism has nothing to do with the stats. Facts are facts.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-12/news/ct-met-chicago-homicide-demographics-20120712_1_homicide-victims-homicide-numbers-police-data

Correct. So now let's return to the subject of the thread.

1. Chicago has strict gun laws.

2. New Orleans has lax gun laws.

4. Why is the murder rate in New Orleans 5 times that of Chicago?

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Well Boards, unfortunately Chicago is catching up...murders are up 35% from last year and Black on Black crime is significantly higher. Claiming racism has nothing to do with the stats. Facts are facts.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-12/news/ct-met-chicago-homicide-demographics-20120712_1_homicide-victims-homicide-numbers-police-data

Correct. So now let's return to the subject of the thread.

1. Chicago has strict gun laws.

2. New Orleans has lax gun laws.

4. Why is the murder rate in New Orleans 5 times that of Chicago?

Warmer weather is a big part of it.

boards of FL wrote:

Chrissy wrote:I see only a 100 murders for kansas in 2009 and 458 for chicago in 2009. But I know what you are doing. You are comparing 3 million people to half a million. When I prefer to look at actual numbers of murders. Youre thinning the heard.

I think there is a serious flaw with that method and it seems to be used a lot.

I'm not going to spend too much time trying to explain to anyone why comparing raw numbers when there are huge disparities in population is ridiculous. You either understand the need to control for population or you don't.

I'll just leave you with this, Chrissy.

Town A population: 10,000
Town A murders: 5,000
Town A murders per capita: 0.5

Town B population: 10,000,000
Town B murders: 5,001
Town B murders per capita: 0.0005001

Are you telling me, Chrissy, that you would rather live in town A than town B? There are more murders in town B than there are in town A, even though you are 999 times more likely to be murdered if you live in town A.

Ill put it like this boards, Id rather live in a town that only had 100 bullets flying at my head in a crowd of 500 people over a town that had 500 bullets flying at my head in a crowd of 3000 people. Because basically thats what it is.

Ghandi wrote:
9 ) I don't give a shit because I don't go to new orleans or chicago.
Let the low income, project dwellers, drug dealers, gang bangers........shoot eachother all they want.

Then why did you create a thread to discuss homicide and gun laws in Chicago if you don't give a shit about homicide or gun laws in Chicago?

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:
9 ) I don't give a shit because I don't go to new orleans or chicago.
Let the low income, project dwellers, drug dealers, gang bangers........shoot eachother all they want.

Then why did you create a thread to discuss homicide and gun laws in Chicago if you don't give a shit about homicide or gun laws in Chicago?

Regardless of demographics, race, or gun laws. 500 murders in one city is too many. Even though that city has strict gun laws and it's mostly blacks that are killing eachother, usually in the warmer months.

Ghandi wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Well Boards, unfortunately Chicago is catching up...murders are up 35% from last year and Black on Black crime is significantly higher. Claiming racism has nothing to do with the stats. Facts are facts.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-12/news/ct-met-chicago-homicide-demographics-20120712_1_homicide-victims-homicide-numbers-police-data

Correct. So now let's return to the subject of the thread.

1. Chicago has strict gun laws.

2. New Orleans has lax gun laws.

4. Why is the murder rate in New Orleans 5 times that of Chicago?

Warmer weather is a big part of it.

So now you are saying that temperature negates any benefit that a city should see from having lax gun laws? Perhaps it is time restate your talking point. Is it "Lax gun laws and cold weather make people safer"?

Ghandi wrote:Regardless of demographics, race, or gun laws. 500 murders in one city is too many. Even though that city has strict gun laws and it's mostly blacks that are killing eachother, usually in the warmer months.

Hell, one murder in a city is too many. But you acknowledge that those 500 murders still represent a significantly lower murder rate than that of New Orleans or Kansas City - which are places with very lax gun laws - right? You now realize that the entire premise of your original post is BS, right?

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Well Boards, unfortunately Chicago is catching up...murders are up 35% from last year and Black on Black crime is significantly higher. Claiming racism has nothing to do with the stats. Facts are facts.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-12/news/ct-met-chicago-homicide-demographics-20120712_1_homicide-victims-homicide-numbers-police-data

Correct. So now let's return to the subject of the thread.

1. Chicago has strict gun laws.

2. New Orleans has lax gun laws.

4. Why is the murder rate in New Orleans 5 times that of Chicago?

Warmer weather is a big part of it.

So now you are saying that temperature negates any benefit that a city should see from having lax gun laws? Perhaps it is time restate your talking point. Is it "Lax gun laws and cold weather make people safer"?

There are three reasons I would never live in chicago.

1. strict gun laws(I like my guns)
2. often too cold(I like nice weather)
3. too much crime(I don't like being robbed or murdered)

Chrissy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Chrissy wrote:I see only a 100 murders for kansas in 2009 and 458 for chicago in 2009. But I know what you are doing. You are comparing 3 million people to half a million. When I prefer to look at actual numbers of murders. Youre thinning the heard.

I think there is a serious flaw with that method and it seems to be used a lot.

I'm not going to spend too much time trying to explain to anyone why comparing raw numbers when there are huge disparities in population is ridiculous. You either understand the need to control for population or you don't.

I'll just leave you with this, Chrissy.

Town A population: 10,000
Town A murders: 5,000
Town A murders per capita: 0.5

Town B population: 10,000,000
Town B murders: 5,001
Town B murders per capita: 0.0005001

Are you telling me, Chrissy, that you would rather live in town A than town B? There are more murders in town B than there are in town A, even though you are 999 times more likely to be murdered if you live in town A.

Ill put it like this boards, Id rather live in a town that only had 100 bullets flying at my head in a crowd of 500 people over a town that had 500 bullets flying at my head in a crowd of 3000 people. Because basically thats what it is.

Hmm. So in the interest of safety, you think Town A is the better place to live? OK. The town in which half the population is murdered each year is safer than the town in which 0.005% of the population is murdered each year. Got it.

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:The people that can legally open carry aren't the ones getting shot.

Did you just pull this out of your ass? Anyone over the age of 18 can legally, openly-carry a handgun in the state of Louisiana. Are you saying that only people under the age of 18 are getting killed in New Orleans?

You can not carry a gun if you are a convicted felon. And a few other convictions.

Even convicted felons can openly carry guns in Louisiana, so long as 10 years has elapsed since the completion of their sentence.

So are you now saying that the only people that ever get killed in Louisiana are either 1) felons for whom 10 years has not elapsed since their sentence completion and 2) people under the age of 18?

This is what I find to be so hilarious about today's ghandi-type conservative. Completely making shit up is quite literally part of their learning process. I guarantee you that this has been ghandi's thought process from the start of this thread to the current post:

1) See article about homicide in Chicago, and have no grasp on the concept of "per capita". Assume this must validate one of your parroted talking points.

2) Suggest a correlation between the homicide rate that you don't understand and gun laws.

3) Be shown the case of New Orleans that blows said correlation out of the water.

4) Not comprehend what was shown and blame black people.

5) Read dumbed down version of the case of New Orleans.

6) Completely make shit up.

7) Read something that suggests your made-up shit is completely silly and unrealistic.

8 ) Completely make more shit up.

Isn't this about right, ghandi? By a show of hands, who here thinks ghandi did any sort of research before he came up with the idea that "The people that can legally open carry aren't the ones getting shot."?

Not me, I know he's an idiot.

boards of FL wrote:

Ghandi wrote:
9 ) I don't give a shit because I don't go to new orleans or chicago.
Let the low income, project dwellers, drug dealers, gang bangers........shoot eachother all they want.

Then why did you create a thread to discuss homicide and gun laws in Chicago if you don't give a shit about homicide or gun laws in Chicago?

Because he wanted to make a point about black poor people again. Although he finds nothing wrong w/ beating someone half to death for cutting in line as that is what he considers fine, upstanding,homeowning, tax paying citizens.