Happy 500th.

boards of FL wrote:

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.

LOL! I am always amazed at the intellect on this forum.

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. 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.

Regarding your above bolded statement at the top: Boards is actually leveling the mathematical field by using per capita figures.

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

I agree w/Joani. I believe that while your math as presented above, is solid, but that the issue is far more complicated than the variables which you've introduced. Demographics most certainly come into play.

boards of FL wrote:Murders per-capita:

Chicago - 15.2
New Orleans - 72.8


Would you guys say gun laws are stronger or more lenient in New Orleans - a place with 5 times the homicide rate as that of Chicago?

Considering New Orleans illegally confiscated all the legal and illegal guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, they are stiffer and also run by Democrats.

I am spending a great deal of time in Chicago lately.....and it is by far the safest city walking around downtown.....than anywhere I have visited. I would live in Downtown Chicago in a second if my circumstances were different. I may be in the minority....but NO always seemed dank and dirty to me.....historical values aside......Chicago is an amazing city, and the Prohibition wars have always resulted in violence in Chicago.....when you end the drug war.....you will greatly reduce gun violence in Chicago.....but walking around the miracle mile.....never been in a place which seems safer.

Markle wrote:Considering New Orleans illegally confiscated all the legal and illegal guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, they are stiffer and also run by Democrats.

Hmm. So you feel the temporary policy employed during Katrina is a better characterization of Louisiana gun law than actual Louisiana gun law?

boards of FL wrote:

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.

You know very well you are very very literary and I know you understand exactly what I am saying. Just as I know very well you are going to cling to using the per 100,000 because it suits your desired goal.

While you do that you refuse to acknowledge what I said. You seem to think just because the population is denser in an area I should be ok with more bullets flying at my head. Its still more bullets being flung no matter how many innocent unharmed bystanders there are.

I already told you I understand your premise on using the data that way, per 100,000. And I already told you I prefer to look at individual murders of an area. I dont care how many people is in the area, I care how many murders are happening in the area.

2seaoat wrote:I am spending a great deal of time in Chicago lately.....and it is by far the safest city walking around downtown.....than anywhere I have visited. I would live in Downtown Chicago in a second if my circumstances were different. I may be in the minority....but NO always seemed dank and dirty to me.....historical values aside......Chicago is an amazing city, and the Prohibition wars have always resulted in violence in Chicago.....when you end the drug war.....you will greatly reduce gun violence in Chicago.....but walking around the miracle mile.....never been in a place which seems safer.

I can assure you , you are in the areas where people with money are as I was when I went.

Chicago is loaded with gangs. Go hang out past the bears stadium after dark in those areas and wave your wallet around. Your face will get shot off with a illegal gun.

And I take it when you say end the drug war, you mean make crack, cocain and heroin legal?

Chrissy wrote:You know very well you are very very literary and I know you understand exactly what I am saying. Just as I know very well you are going to cling to using the per 100,000 because it suits your desired goal.

Not at all. My "desired goal" is to look at things accurately and in proper context so that I have some sense of perspective when talking about things like homicide levels in cities and gun control laws in cities. My "desired goal" is not to verify some predetermined outcome that is divorced from reality. That being said, using per-capita data gives a more accurate look at the homicide situation in a particular city than does raw homicide numbers. And this isn't my own personal, subjective look here. This is fact. You are objectively wrong when you refuse to acknowledge per-capita values. But that's OK. Reality doesn't require your understanding.

Some more examples for you:

Event A - Terrorist attack at a sporting event
People in attendance: 8,000
Deaths: 60

Event B - Plane crash
People in attendance: 50
Deaths: 49

You'd rather be in the plane crash, right? Less people died in the plan crash, and since evaluating raw number of deaths makes more rational sense to you, the plane crash is clearly the safer event, right?


You should also come to my casino.

Game A
Odds of winning: 0.0000000000001
Payout: $1000

Game B
Odds of winning: 0.95
Payout: $100

Game A is clearly the better game, right? It has the higher payout. The odds of winning are irrelevant, as is the expected value of the payout. The payout is higher in game A so that game is therefore better.



I would also love to sell you some insurance.

Company A
Claims approved: 1000
Claims received: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Company B
Claims approved: 500
Claims received: 600

Clearly you would buy insurance from company A, right? Being that they have paid out 1000 claims versus Company B's 600 claims, you feel that company A is more likely to approve your claim, should you ever need to file one, right?

Dreamsglore wrote:

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.

An idiot is two stars above what you are. Retard.

Dreamsglore wrote:

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.

I'll admit it. The guy who cut in line was not white. He wasn't black either.
And I'd do the same thing today.

Still. 80% of the murders in chicago this year were black on black and the % in new orleans was probably about the same.

Think the bigger question is why in a city with such strict gun laws are murders being committed with guns. Aren't the gun laws suppose to prevent people from using guns? Aren't the gun laws suppose to restrict access to guns? Yet Chicago's murder rate which guns were used is skyrocketing. So why are the gun laws not working in Chicago?

alecto wrote:Think the bigger question is why in a city with such strict gun laws are murders being committed with guns. Aren't the gun laws suppose to prevent people from using guns? Aren't the gun laws suppose to restrict access to guns? Yet Chicago's murder rate which guns were used is skyrocketing. So why are the gun laws not working in Chicago?

Because criminals don't follow the law.
And most of the murderers/criminals are black. 80% according to their own news.

So if we use your logic ghandi, it isn't a gun problem, it's a black problem.

What do you say should be done about it...?

The black problem in Chicago.

W_T_M wrote:So if we use your logic ghandi, it isn't a gun problem, it's a black problem.

What do you say should be done about it...?

The black problem in Chicago.

Education might be a start. Ever hear one of these gang bangers or drug dealers in an interview? They ain't very bright.
And I didn't make 80% of the murderers in chicago black, so point the blame elsewhere.

Maybe the government should offer free K-12 education for blacks the same as they do for whites.

Why do you feel you are being blamed...?

You made it obvious what the problem is, and you're always a go to guy when it comes to getting something solved.

What needs to be done about educating them uppity black kids...?

Is your solution for the black problem that much different from the solution for the mooslim problem....?

Or would it also involve education...?


Classes starting soon.

you should look into it





in edit...

looks like the negative helpers are here, huh ghandi...?

mine went up seven points since you got back from getting your ass handed to you by Boards.

W_T_M wrote:Why do you feel you are being blamed...?

You made it obvious what the problem is, and you're always a go to guy when it comes to getting something solved.

What needs to be done about educating them uppity black kids...?

Is your solution for the black problem that much different from the solution for the mooslim problem....?

Or would it also involve education...?


Classes starting soon.

you should look into it

Maybe they would be smarter if they didn't have a drinking problem.

And I didn't - you on this thread. Once again. Point blame elsewhere.
Must be rough not being allowed to have a drink on new years eve.
Moderation is beyond the week minded and those that lack self control.

Right.

Time for you to start that tactic because you are losing again.

Pussy.

W_T_M wrote:Right.

Time for you to start that tactic because you are losing again.

Pussy.

Is your name calling from your lack of self control too?
Losing it again? How's the family handling it?

LOL.

So the truth is that you believe extermination is the way to solve a race/ethnic problem, right...?

"...the only good muslim is a dead muslim..."

Therefore, we need to start rounding up them black illegal gun owners and prepare the camps, right...?

That's some serious problem solving dude.

You should run for office.

W_T_M wrote:LOL.

So the truth is that you believe extermination is the way to solve a race/ethnic problem, right...?

"...the only good muslim is a dead muslim..."

Therefore, we need to start rounding up them black illegal gun owners and prepare the camps, right...?

That's some serious problem solving dude.

You should run for office.

You need help. Want me to call your sponsor for you? Or did you get on his bad side too?

Ghandi wrote:

W_T_M wrote:LOL.

So the truth is that you believe extermination is the way to solve a race/ethnic problem, right...?

"...the only good muslim is a dead muslim..."

Therefore, we need to start rounding up them black illegal gun owners and prepare the camps, right...?

That's some serious problem solving dude.

You should run for office.

You need help. Want me to call your sponsor for you? Or did you get on his bad side too?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

As a matter of fact, I spoke on the phone with him earlier tonight, for about 20 minutes. We saw one another at a meeting earlier today where a friend was celebrating his 16th year of Sober living.

But my recovery is not what this is about, is it...?

It's about your more or less, self admitted, abject, unapologetic racism.

So you will do anything to change the subject because this one makes you look ignorant and apathetic.

New Orleans is and has been one of the most corrupt cities and police forces in the Nation. Does anyone know if Chicago is known for their corruption?

After Hurricane Katrina their corrupt police force, with orders from the corrupt Mayor Ray Nagin went door to door confiscating all weapons. They were sued and lost but by then many of the guns had been lost Also, unless you could prove the gun was yours, you could not reclaim your gun. That left a defenseless society.

Their population decreased greatly after Katrina but the poor and low income people could not afford to leave, the criminals did not turn in their guns.

The Mexican Drug Cartels have invaded this country and cities like Chicago, major distribution location with trains and buses leaving for every major city in the North. New Orleans with a well known corrupt government and understaffed police force. Hundreds less than before Katrina.

Chicago is safe on the North Side and a war zone on the South Side. New Orleans has the same areas. I'm not nearly as familiar with New Orleans as Chicago. I LOVE visiting New Orleans. I LOVE jazz, blues and great food. I also know Bourbon Street is kept safe but getting a block off Bourbon and you take your life in your own hands.

W_T_M wrote:LOL.

So the truth is that you believe extermination is the way to solve a race/ethnic problem, right...?

"...the only good muslim is a dead muslim..."

Therefore, we need to start rounding up them black illegal gun owners and prepare the camps, right...?

That's some serious problem solving dude.

You should run for office.

What do you think Planned Parenthood is doing?

W_T_M wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

W_T_M wrote:LOL.

So the truth is that you believe extermination is the way to solve a race/ethnic problem, right...?

"...the only good muslim is a dead muslim..."

Therefore, we need to start rounding up them black illegal gun owners and prepare the camps, right...?

That's some serious problem solving dude.

You should run for office.

You need help. Want me to call your sponsor for you? Or did you get on his bad side too?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

As a matter of fact, I spoke on the phone with him earlier tonight, for about 20 minutes. We saw one another at a meeting earlier today where a friend was celebrating his 16th year of Sober living.

But my recovery is not what this is about, is it...?

It's about your more or less, self admitted, abject, unapologetic racism.

So you will do anything to change the subject because this one makes you look ignorant and apathetic.

So knowing that 80% of the murderers in chicago are black makes me a racist?

Dummy.