From your cherrypicked data points of 2000 and 2008 which you are comparing for some reason. Over the long term from 1960 through 2010, no.
Your own cite points to 2000 as a discontinuity in the trend; 2008 is the last point of available data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, dumbass.
The stability in firearms homicide (and increase in non handgun firearm homicides) despite the overall decline in violent crimes suggest that something other than general criminogenic processes is driving US firearm homicides. Something in particular is associated with a trend in non handgun firearms homicides that is in fact running counter to the overall violence trend.
What could it be, I wonder?
Can you use anything other than small words as you try to fashion an explanation? We’ll be so proud of your big boy words, I promise.
It very clearly says 2010 is the last year in the stats. I’m not surprised that this level of alternate-reality is coming from someone who thinks it’s possible to believe that we’re in an epidemic of gun crime and that anyone who thinks they may be the victim of a crime is a paranoid racist.
Two clues for the sub-moronic reader:
1). As noted previously, the name of the document is “Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980 - 2008.”
2). The caption of Figure 42 is “Homicides, by weapon type, 1980 - 2008.”
See that last number there? That tells you what the last year of the data series is.
Ask someone for help if you cannot figure it out.
What the fuck are you talking about?
There’s 15 citations for crime in 2010 in the document I linked to. Your assertion is that no data exists beyond 2008 because in some OTHER document, published IN 2008, that data doesn’t appear.
Fucking amazing.
I guess “Never go full retard” doesn’t apply to gun debates.
This guy is awesome! He seems to lack any awareness of his limitations, and he calls himself condescending. Beautiful!
Are you two talking about the same data?
I’m making my best effort to show him that there are two documents in play, and that the fact that the one of them published in 2008 does not have data from beyond 2008 does not mean that no such data exists anywhere else, especially since the other one goes through 2010, but he isn’t listening because he’s stupid.
Put them in a bar, lubricate then with drinks, and have one or both of them armed.
Then do the same, but have one or both of them own swimming pools.
I presented a Dept. of Justice report that separated firearms homicide by type of weapon. It shows an increase in non handgun firearm homicides from 2000 to 2008, the last year of data on type of weapon to those authors at the time of their report. It also shows the general stability in handgun homicides during that period.
Condescending Dumbass came back with a Pew Report which used CDC mortality data, even though it does not break out firearms types. It shows stability in overall firearms homicides from the period 2000-2010, where the rate of firearms homicides starts at 3.8, fluctuates upwards of 4.4 and ends up at 3.6 over that period.
He does not appear to understand that the data he grabbed does not contradict anything I’ve said.
He cannot even comprehend when the DOJ paper was published.
He will not be able to quote anywhere that I’ve said the DOJ paper was the only data in existence. He has confused the concept of data available to researchers when they write a paper with data available ever, for some strange reason.
This guy is an idiot.
If there is a “general stability in the rate of handgun homicides” and a decline from 3.8 to 3.6 in the total firearm homicide rate, then there cannot be a “50% increase in non-handgun gun homicides” unless there is some category of “guns which are neither handguns nor non-handguns” that was responsible for a huge number of homicides in 2000 and has now gone away.
This is beyond your inability to read links, understand statistics, or follow English; this is simple logic of how the universe works. Total gun homicides must equal “homicides with guns that are handguns plus homicides with guns that are not handguns.” If you disagree then you might as well say 2 + 2 = 5.
Some more stupid gun news: Talk show host Michael Savage says that having a round chambered indicates Zimmerman was “hunting” for someone to “shoot or intimidate”. :rolleyes:
http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/2013/07/savage-says-zimmerman-guilty/
Micheal “Mad Dog” Savage? WTF? The End Times are upon us! He makes Rush Limbaugh seem like the soul of moderation and compromise. Fuckin’ weird!
Another idiot who didn’t realize that bullets fired up will come back down, and a boy is dead.
To be fair, he could have had a swimming pool drop on his head just as easily.
“To be fair, he could have left his swimming pool gate unlocked just as easily.”
Sorry to burst your [del]bubble[/del] false equivalency there, chuckles.
He had a swimming pool? I didn’t see that in the article.
I was actually thinking a piano, but I agree your scenario is more apt.
I’m sick of hearing about shitty accidents like this one
ETA: Oops. Didn’t know I’d been scooped.