Wouldn't part of the issue be the type of sugar as well? I mean sugars are, like fats, an entire subcategory of complex hydrocarbons. So to compare percentages alone is far too simplistic.
The point was not to show that there was a trend upward, that just happened to be the case. The point was to show that the trend did not significantly change from before 1997 to after 1997. Thus, whatever the reasons for the trend, the Gun Ban was not one of them. Maybe it did have an effect, but these numbers are not compelling enough to reach that conclusion.
Even only accounting for 5 years, the trend is still there: 1992 was 29,528; 1997/98 was 34,045; the average increase is still between 753 and 903 (depending on whether you average over 5 or 6 years, i.e. from 1998 or 1997). So my original average of 855 from 1981-1997 is still pretty damn close.
Also, you are completely ignoring the fact that the jump between the old and the new rules occurred in the 1998/99 reporting, which is at least 1-2 years after the gun ban was put into effect. In fact, using the Total Violence (TV) numbers (which, btw, don't include the TSO numbers, but I'll indulge you) from 1997 to 1998/99 (old rules) we see a decrease from 250,822 to 230,756. Again, the jump only occurs at the point where the reporting changes. Let's look a little deeper into that, shall we?
Between the new rules and the old rules, the jump was actually over 100%, in the TV category; from 230,756 to 502,788. A difference of 272,032! Looking through the subcategories, however, I notice that most of them don't really change all that much at that point. Some get re-categorized, like "Other wounding etc." to "Less serious wounding", but the numbers stay mostly the same.
However, there are also a few categories that are completely empty up until the rule changes. The largest ones are (using the 1998/99 "new rule" numbers): Possession of Weapons (23,635), Harassment (79,534), Assault on a Constable (21,510), and Common Assault (151,469). Guess what these numbers all add up to? That's right, the entirety of the 272,032, and then some.
You aren't seriously telling me that Assault, or Assaulting a Constable wasn't a crime in the UK before 1998, are you? Of course not, it's much more reasonable to conclude that these numbers were not included before the reporting rules were changed.
That is where your increase in violent crime is coming from: the fact that some of the largest categories of violent crime weren't even being included until the rule change in 1998/99. It has absolutely nothing to do with the gun ban, whatsoever.
Any way you hack it, your conclusions simply aren't supported by these numbers.
Thanks, this is incredibly thorough. I have a few problems with the analysis and interpretation of the numbers though.
I'm assuming that the UK gun ban you're referring to are the two Firearm (Amendment) Acts passed in 1997. For simplicity's sake (there are a crapload of numbers) and to narrow the scope a bit, I'm specifically looking at the columns labeled "Total Sexual Offences" (TSO) in both spreadsheets. You mentioned the 5 years before and after the ban, but I'm going to widen that range a bit, from 1981 (chosen because it represents a local minimum) up to 2014/15.
Ok, with the parameters defined a bit, here are the reasons I'm skeptical that a conclusive link can be drawn between the gun ban and the increase in TSO:
1. From 1981 to 1998/99 (old rules) (see point #2), TSO increases from 19,424 to 34,789; an average of 855 per year. In only 3 of those years did TSO decrease: 1983-84 (-188), 1989-90 (-689), and 1994-95 (-1697). The largest increase was 1987-88 (+3204). I think it's reasonable to say there was a steady trend upwards in TSO prior to the ban. This range also includes the first two years after the ban went into effect, with TSO increasing by 955 and 744, respectively; by no means bucking the trend. So for up to 2 years after the ban went into effect, there was no significant increase in TSO compared to the 16 years prior.
2. Why stop at 1998/99? Because there are 2 rows for that year, one labeled "old rules" and one labeled "new rules". We see a significant increase between the 2 rows: from 34,789 to 46,372, a difference of 11,583. Why such a huge discrepancy? Well, as footnote #59 indicates:
The following changes were made from 1 April 1998: the change to the Home Office Counting Rules for recorded crime had the effect of increasing the number of crimes counted. Numbers of offences for years before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.
So it cannot be concluded that this increase is attributable to the gun ban.
3. Now, let's look at 1998/99 (new rules) up to 2000/01 (see point #4). In 1999/00 we see an increase in TSO to 47,185, a difference of 813; again, well within the trend established in point #1. In 2000/01, TSO decreases to 45,878, a difference of -1307. Combining this with points #1 and #2, there was no significant increase in TSO for the first 4 years the ban was in effect.
4. Again, why did I stop at 2000/01? Because, again, there are footnotes for 2001/02 (#69, first spreadsheet) and 2002/03 (#1, second spreadsheet). They are identical:
Introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) across England and Wales on 1 April 2002. Some forces adopted the Standard prior to this date. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard, numbers of recorded crimes are not comparable with previous years.
Not only that, but 2002/03 has a second footnote (#2), which says:
Includes the British Transport Police from 2002/03 onwards.
In other words, an entire branch of the police force that wasn't previously included is now added to the numbers. Between 2000/01 and 2001/02, TSO increased to 49,581, a difference of 3703. Between 2001/02 and 2002/03 TSO increased to 56,652, a difference of 7071. Again, while these increases are significant, as in point #2, due to changes in how the numbers are recorded, they cannot be directly attributable to the gun ban.
5. Now, if we look at the years from 2002/03 to 2012/13, we actually see a downward trend from 60,412 in 2003/04 to 50,185 in 2008/09. Between 2008/09 and 2012/13, it remains pretty steady at around 52,000 to 53,000. In the entire decade from 2003 to 2013, there was no significant increase in TSO.
FINALLY, between 2012/13 and 2014/15 is where we actually see the first, truly anomalous, unexplained increase. In 2 years, TS
My dad mentioned something very interesting to me recently. ISIS took Mosul, a city of around 1.5-2million people, with (according to wikipedia) around 800-1300+ fighters. The 30,000 Iraqi troops who fled notwithstanding, imagine if Mosul had a similar percentage of armed citizens as the US?
All I have to say to ISIS is: Come at us motherfuckers!
You can say that about some governments, maybe (see other replies for counter-arguments), but here's the thing:
Add up all the people who have been killed in atrocities committed by non-government entities that you want: individuals, terrorist groups, rebel scum, etc. They will always be vastly outnumbered by those killed by governments, period. I'll even spot you all of human history up to the beginning of the 20th Century. It isn't even close.
You want to be safe? Giving more power to the government is not the answer. The government will always tell you that they can keep you safe if they just had the ability to do this one more thing. But they're lying (or stupid (or both)), because the fact is they can't protect you. There is always someone crazier out there who will get around whatever rules we put in place. Then the government will again ask for more power, because this one more thing would have stopped them.
You know what really keeps you and I safe? That most people are good. That the person standing next to you on the subway platform won't just push you onto the tracks as the train is coming for no particular reason. Is there a chance they might suddenly might give you a shove? Sure, but you don't worry about it, because it's so unlikely.
Am I saying that you should fear your government? No. But I am saying that you should be wary of giving the government more power. Most people are good, so let them be free.
Once you allow put the government in charge of determining who is allowed to vote, you have a very serious threat to liberty. Voter fraud is irrelevant statistically, so the risk being taken by having voter ID laws is simply not worth it. It's similar to the 100 guilty people vs. 1 innocent person argument used for legal systems. I'd rather let 100 people commit voter fraud than prevent 1 person from voting because they didn't pass some arbitrary barrier set by the government.
Seriously people, actually go and READ THE CONSTITUTION. Stop talking about it like it's some abstract thing. It isn't even that long, I guarantee it will take less than 30 minutes. In the very first fucking sentence:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Neither of those countries could really be considered Communist anymore. Oh I know China still uses the name and still has the party, and some things remain nationalized, but it's a vast oversimplification to label them Communist anymore. Of course I'm speaking purely economically, not about their system of government or the amount of political freedom.
The crime he allegedly committed wasn't "talking to a muslim woman", it was for inciting racial hatred online (which is illegal in the UK). He asked a muslim woman to "explain Brussels" and she said "nothing to do with me", which he described as a "mealy mouthed reply". He then went on to tweet other things, including using the word "towelhead" multiple times.
I don't think this should be a crime, free speech and all that. The guy supposedly works in PR, I'd rather see him try to further his career in that field after this.
Jesus is mentioned more times in the Koran than Mohammed is. He is considered by Muslims to be one of the most high ranked and beloved prophets of God.
Islam claims to supersede and render irrelevant aspects of Judaism and Christianity. It is identical to the argument you are making.
Some Christian sects that deny the Trinity: Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Members Church of God International, Oneness Pentecostals, the Seventh Day Church of God, Unitarian Universalist Christians, United Church of God, and The Shepherd's Chapel.
They lose their Permit to Practice unless they assign someone else as the Responsible Member. That other person would be bound by the same rules of ethics and standards of practice, and they must inform the Association of the change, and the reason for it. Plus, there is no at-will (or right to work, or whatever the hell it's called) nonsense in Canada, if you fire someone for something like that you get a big fat wrongful dismissal lawsuit. And, since the Association has the sole legal authority to determine what constitutes negligence or incompetence in the practice of Engineering, the company has to prove it to them, not the normal court system.
If the person who was fired suspects that the reason was to skirt regulation in some way, they are obligated to report it. If the claim is serious enough (i.e. it represents a danger to the public) the Association will suspend the Permit pending the result of the investigation, which could take months, and is probably not in the best interest of the company.
There may be other protections in place for the Responsible Member, I'm not familiar with all of the rules. But I do know that part of getting the corporate Permit is providing a detailed breakdown of the company structure and procedure, to ensure that the Responsible Member is capable of meeting their obligation.
It is self-regulation, but the companies don't regulate themselves, the Professionals do. You have almost nothing to gain and everything to lose by violating the Code of Conduct. I never said it was perfect (in fact I said the opposite), but it's something, and it seems to work pretty well from what I've seen.
Maybe not a perfect solution, but it's something...
Here in Alberta you must be a part of APEGA (the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta) in order to practice engineering (there are similar entities in just about every province in Canada). Any engineering company that wishes to operate in Alberta must have a Permit to Practice, and employ a so-called "Responsible Member" (of APEGA) that oversees and approves all engineering related decisions or designs. This person has the final say on all engineering decisions, they cannot be overridden by anyone; not the President/CEO, not the Board of Directors, not the shareholders.
Your argument seems to be that valuing our liberty over our safety is the same thing as "giving up and inviting terrorists in". What are the terrorists goals exactly? They are to crumble our society. If our society is based on freedom and liberty, then taking away those things is giving up.
The way we fight them is we show them that fear will not make us change who we are and what we stand for. You are the one who is saying it's too hard.
It absolutely was not the standard. I grew up in New York (unless you consider the US a back yard country) and my father would often go on business trips. My mother and I would accompany him to the gate, and watch the plane leave through the window. When we went to pick him up, we would wait at the gate and greet him right as he left the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, everyone always forgets the President is in charge of the budget.
Oh wait, I have that backwards.
Wouldn't part of the issue be the type of sugar as well? I mean sugars are, like fats, an entire subcategory of complex hydrocarbons. So to compare percentages alone is far too simplistic.
The point was not to show that there was a trend upward, that just happened to be the case. The point was to show that the trend did not significantly change from before 1997 to after 1997. Thus, whatever the reasons for the trend, the Gun Ban was not one of them. Maybe it did have an effect, but these numbers are not compelling enough to reach that conclusion.
Even only accounting for 5 years, the trend is still there: 1992 was 29,528; 1997/98 was 34,045; the average increase is still between 753 and 903 (depending on whether you average over 5 or 6 years, i.e. from 1998 or 1997). So my original average of 855 from 1981-1997 is still pretty damn close.
Also, you are completely ignoring the fact that the jump between the old and the new rules occurred in the 1998/99 reporting, which is at least 1-2 years after the gun ban was put into effect. In fact, using the Total Violence (TV) numbers (which, btw, don't include the TSO numbers, but I'll indulge you) from 1997 to 1998/99 (old rules) we see a decrease from 250,822 to 230,756. Again, the jump only occurs at the point where the reporting changes. Let's look a little deeper into that, shall we?
Between the new rules and the old rules, the jump was actually over 100%, in the TV category; from 230,756 to 502,788. A difference of 272,032! Looking through the subcategories, however, I notice that most of them don't really change all that much at that point. Some get re-categorized, like "Other wounding etc." to "Less serious wounding", but the numbers stay mostly the same.
However, there are also a few categories that are completely empty up until the rule changes. The largest ones are (using the 1998/99 "new rule" numbers): Possession of Weapons (23,635), Harassment (79,534), Assault on a Constable (21,510), and Common Assault (151,469). Guess what these numbers all add up to? That's right, the entirety of the 272,032, and then some.
You aren't seriously telling me that Assault, or Assaulting a Constable wasn't a crime in the UK before 1998, are you? Of course not, it's much more reasonable to conclude that these numbers were not included before the reporting rules were changed.
That is where your increase in violent crime is coming from: the fact that some of the largest categories of violent crime weren't even being included until the rule change in 1998/99. It has absolutely nothing to do with the gun ban, whatsoever.
Any way you hack it, your conclusions simply aren't supported by these numbers.
Thanks, this is incredibly thorough. I have a few problems with the analysis and interpretation of the numbers though.
I'm assuming that the UK gun ban you're referring to are the two Firearm (Amendment) Acts passed in 1997. For simplicity's sake (there are a crapload of numbers) and to narrow the scope a bit, I'm specifically looking at the columns labeled "Total Sexual Offences" (TSO) in both spreadsheets. You mentioned the 5 years before and after the ban, but I'm going to widen that range a bit, from 1981 (chosen because it represents a local minimum) up to 2014/15.
Ok, with the parameters defined a bit, here are the reasons I'm skeptical that a conclusive link can be drawn between the gun ban and the increase in TSO:
1. From 1981 to 1998/99 (old rules) (see point #2), TSO increases from 19,424 to 34,789; an average of 855 per year. In only 3 of those years did TSO decrease: 1983-84 (-188), 1989-90 (-689), and 1994-95 (-1697). The largest increase was 1987-88 (+3204). I think it's reasonable to say there was a steady trend upwards in TSO prior to the ban. This range also includes the first two years after the ban went into effect, with TSO increasing by 955 and 744, respectively; by no means bucking the trend. So for up to 2 years after the ban went into effect, there was no significant increase in TSO compared to the 16 years prior.
2. Why stop at 1998/99? Because there are 2 rows for that year, one labeled "old rules" and one labeled "new rules". We see a significant increase between the 2 rows: from 34,789 to 46,372, a difference of 11,583. Why such a huge discrepancy? Well, as footnote #59 indicates:
The following changes were made from 1 April 1998: the change to the Home Office Counting Rules for recorded crime had the effect of increasing the number of crimes counted. Numbers of offences for years before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.
So it cannot be concluded that this increase is attributable to the gun ban.
3. Now, let's look at 1998/99 (new rules) up to 2000/01 (see point #4). In 1999/00 we see an increase in TSO to 47,185, a difference of 813; again, well within the trend established in point #1. In 2000/01, TSO decreases to 45,878, a difference of -1307. Combining this with points #1 and #2, there was no significant increase in TSO for the first 4 years the ban was in effect.
4. Again, why did I stop at 2000/01? Because, again, there are footnotes for 2001/02 (#69, first spreadsheet) and 2002/03 (#1, second spreadsheet). They are identical:
Introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) across England and Wales on 1 April 2002. Some forces adopted the Standard prior to this date. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard, numbers of recorded crimes are not comparable with previous years.
Not only that, but 2002/03 has a second footnote (#2), which says:
Includes the British Transport Police from 2002/03 onwards.
In other words, an entire branch of the police force that wasn't previously included is now added to the numbers. Between 2000/01 and 2001/02, TSO increased to 49,581, a difference of 3703. Between 2001/02 and 2002/03 TSO increased to 56,652, a difference of 7071. Again, while these increases are significant, as in point #2, due to changes in how the numbers are recorded, they cannot be directly attributable to the gun ban.
5. Now, if we look at the years from 2002/03 to 2012/13, we actually see a downward trend from 60,412 in 2003/04 to 50,185 in 2008/09. Between 2008/09 and 2012/13, it remains pretty steady at around 52,000 to 53,000. In the entire decade from 2003 to 2013, there was no significant increase in TSO.
FINALLY, between 2012/13 and 2014/15 is where we actually see the first, truly anomalous, unexplained increase. In 2 years, TS
My dad mentioned something very interesting to me recently. ISIS took Mosul, a city of around 1.5-2million people, with (according to wikipedia) around 800-1300+ fighters. The 30,000 Iraqi troops who fled notwithstanding, imagine if Mosul had a similar percentage of armed citizens as the US?
All I have to say to ISIS is: Come at us motherfuckers!
Nice post. I am curious about the rape statistics. I asked someone else on /. recently and they came up with bunk.
By the way, the Constitution guarantees you way more than 10 essential rights. Don't sell yourself short! :P
You can say that about some governments, maybe (see other replies for counter-arguments), but here's the thing:
Add up all the people who have been killed in atrocities committed by non-government entities that you want: individuals, terrorist groups, rebel scum, etc. They will always be vastly outnumbered by those killed by governments, period. I'll even spot you all of human history up to the beginning of the 20th Century. It isn't even close.
You want to be safe? Giving more power to the government is not the answer. The government will always tell you that they can keep you safe if they just had the ability to do this one more thing. But they're lying (or stupid (or both)), because the fact is they can't protect you. There is always someone crazier out there who will get around whatever rules we put in place. Then the government will again ask for more power, because this one more thing would have stopped them.
You know what really keeps you and I safe? That most people are good. That the person standing next to you on the subway platform won't just push you onto the tracks as the train is coming for no particular reason. Is there a chance they might suddenly might give you a shove? Sure, but you don't worry about it, because it's so unlikely.
Am I saying that you should fear your government? No. But I am saying that you should be wary of giving the government more power. Most people are good, so let them be free.
Hey, I like your sig. That is all.
What if someone buys something at a yard sale? Fuck it, brain chips inserted at birth.
What if they give birth at home? Shit, OK no one is allowed to give birth.
In about a century, there's no one around to commit any crimes! Problem solved!
Once you allow put the government in charge of determining who is allowed to vote, you have a very serious threat to liberty. Voter fraud is irrelevant statistically, so the risk being taken by having voter ID laws is simply not worth it. It's similar to the 100 guilty people vs. 1 innocent person argument used for legal systems. I'd rather let 100 people commit voter fraud than prevent 1 person from voting because they didn't pass some arbitrary barrier set by the government.
Seriously people, actually go and READ THE CONSTITUTION. Stop talking about it like it's some abstract thing. It isn't even that long, I guarantee it will take less than 30 minutes. In the very first fucking sentence:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Yeah! If we're gonna have a flamewar, let's make it about technology! Like the old times!
Sega does what Ninten-don't!
For all I knew, you could've been a Simpsons character, and used the octal system. :)
We don't use the decimal system over here.
Where are you exactly?
Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
Neither of those countries could really be considered Communist anymore. Oh I know China still uses the name and still has the party, and some things remain nationalized, but it's a vast oversimplification to label them Communist anymore. Of course I'm speaking purely economically, not about their system of government or the amount of political freedom.
The crime he allegedly committed wasn't "talking to a muslim woman", it was for inciting racial hatred online (which is illegal in the UK). He asked a muslim woman to "explain Brussels" and she said "nothing to do with me", which he described as a "mealy mouthed reply". He then went on to tweet other things, including using the word "towelhead" multiple times.
I don't think this should be a crime, free speech and all that. The guy supposedly works in PR, I'd rather see him try to further his career in that field after this.
Jesus is mentioned more times in the Koran than Mohammed is. He is considered by Muslims to be one of the most high ranked and beloved prophets of God.
Islam claims to supersede and render irrelevant aspects of Judaism and Christianity. It is identical to the argument you are making.
Some Christian sects that deny the Trinity: Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Members Church of God International, Oneness Pentecostals, the Seventh Day Church of God, Unitarian Universalist Christians, United Church of God, and The Shepherd's Chapel.
They lose their Permit to Practice unless they assign someone else as the Responsible Member. That other person would be bound by the same rules of ethics and standards of practice, and they must inform the Association of the change, and the reason for it. Plus, there is no at-will (or right to work, or whatever the hell it's called) nonsense in Canada, if you fire someone for something like that you get a big fat wrongful dismissal lawsuit. And, since the Association has the sole legal authority to determine what constitutes negligence or incompetence in the practice of Engineering, the company has to prove it to them, not the normal court system.
If the person who was fired suspects that the reason was to skirt regulation in some way, they are obligated to report it. If the claim is serious enough (i.e. it represents a danger to the public) the Association will suspend the Permit pending the result of the investigation, which could take months, and is probably not in the best interest of the company.
There may be other protections in place for the Responsible Member, I'm not familiar with all of the rules. But I do know that part of getting the corporate Permit is providing a detailed breakdown of the company structure and procedure, to ensure that the Responsible Member is capable of meeting their obligation.
It is self-regulation, but the companies don't regulate themselves, the Professionals do. You have almost nothing to gain and everything to lose by violating the Code of Conduct. I never said it was perfect (in fact I said the opposite), but it's something, and it seems to work pretty well from what I've seen.
Maybe not a perfect solution, but it's something...
Here in Alberta you must be a part of APEGA (the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta) in order to practice engineering (there are similar entities in just about every province in Canada). Any engineering company that wishes to operate in Alberta must have a Permit to Practice, and employ a so-called "Responsible Member" (of APEGA) that oversees and approves all engineering related decisions or designs. This person has the final say on all engineering decisions, they cannot be overridden by anyone; not the President/CEO, not the Board of Directors, not the shareholders.
Your argument seems to be that valuing our liberty over our safety is the same thing as "giving up and inviting terrorists in". What are the terrorists goals exactly? They are to crumble our society. If our society is based on freedom and liberty, then taking away those things is giving up.
The way we fight them is we show them that fear will not make us change who we are and what we stand for. You are the one who is saying it's too hard.
So wait, are you saying the security works or not? Also, that flight was leaving Egypt and heading for Russia, and wouldn't be subject to TSA rules.
Honestly, someone probably just bribed one of the security personnel at the airport to look the other way.
It absolutely was not the standard. I grew up in New York (unless you consider the US a back yard country) and my father would often go on business trips. My mother and I would accompany him to the gate, and watch the plane leave through the window. When we went to pick him up, we would wait at the gate and greet him right as he left the plane.
Yeah, except remember when this happened?
Unlike the nerves of steel it would require to deliberately fly the plane into a skyscraper?