Sigh, lets try again, "Between 1995 and 2004/05 violent crime, as measured by the BCS1, has fallen by 43 per cent"
The handgun ban was in 1997. If you still disagree please provide a source. Violent crime is way down since the 90s - whether this has anything to do with the ban is debatable, but what is not debatable is the significant decrease.
Handgun crime may have dropped by 50% since 1993, but only as a part of a larger trend.
From 1993 to 2005, the violent crime rate was down 58%, from 50 to 21 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
In fact I think you'll find that in cities like DC, Chicago, LA and especially NY which had stricter gun control laws violent crime and handgun crime decreased even more. There has been a recent up-tick in some cities since 2005, that also has nothing to do with handguns or their availability.
Between 1995 and 2004/05 violent crime, as measured by the BCS1, has fallen by 43 per cent
p23
Weapon use and the types of weapons used has remained stable since 1995 in all crime types except mugging (including robbery), where weapon use (mainly knife use) has decreased from 35 per cent in 1995 to 18 per cent in 2004/05.
Oh, and then there's this: p72
The implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) by police forces on 1 April 2002, increased the number of crimes recorded in 2002/03 and, as a result of audits to further improve recording, in 2003/04 and 2004/05 too. It has not been possible to assess accurately the effect of this change on recorded firearm crimes. This change inflated the overall number of violence against the person and criminal damage offences but had less effect on the number of robberies (see Simmons et al., 2003). Many firearm offences are amongst the categories, such as criminal damage involving an airgun, that are most likely to have been affected by the NCRS.
So even if we grant that there has been a increase in reported handgun usage in crimes since the ban, we have to consider that it was merely a difference in reporting methodology. Also gun violence decreased between 2004-2005 and I would suspect that were the methodology consistent the UK would be below 1997 levels of gun violence.
Obviously I'm not saying that situation doesn't happen. What I'm saying is most violent crime in urban areas is between people who know each other or are involved in gang activity. For every grandmother who could protect herself from stranger assailants by purchasing a gun, there are three or four people who would bring a gun to a confrontation with a friend or relative (possibly their grandmother) who otherwise wouldn't have.
I'm not missing the point at all. While gang members may already have guns, your average joe wifebeater won't. Either way with the lifting of the ban gang members will have more access to more guns, and those prone to commit violence to their relatives will have access they wouldn't.
This says nothing of the constitutionality of the ban. While I'm all for gun owners being well trained not having a gun at all is still safer for the would-be gun owner than having one. The quickest way (statistically) to increase your chance of being shot - buy a gun.
Because as anyone who has ever lived in a large city knows the main form of crime is armed assailants killing innocent grandmothers in their bedrooms...
It's not as if violence between family members and gang violence accounts for the majority of violent crime. This is a very good thing, because if guns were inserted into relationships where people who know each other or are members of violent gangs are trying to hurt each other, one might expect the rate of homicides to go up...
Sorry for the hijack, but I'm going to attempt to insert some of the backstory here. See, I've lived in Delaware for the last 4 years (I'll gladly accept your pity)
Getting this deal done was a seemingly never ending political nightmare. Delmarva, the recently deregulated power company has fought against it tooth and nail. They seemed to have been under the impression that signing a 25 year power deal at a fixed price was a bad idea because you know, the price of oil might go down in the future...
Our governor was initially pushing a "clean coal" plant and against this deal. Blue Water Wind finally got the deal done due, in a large part, to netroots action pressuring the state legislature to force a deal down Delmarva's throat if they didn't start to negotiate in good faith. Delaware doesn't have ANY power generation, and buys all of it's power from other states. Delmarva wanted to continue to do this in spite of the rediculous congestion on our power infrastructure.
Tommywonk has been doing a fantastic job covering this issue, and if anyone wants anymore information I'd suggest they head there. (Surprisingly he doesn't have an update about the deal being inked yet)
Anyway, a warning to green power advocates, if this case is any indication, expect the entrenched interests to fight you every step of the way.
The entire purpose of Cheney's false remark is to raise the specter of communist competition and spur the US into an action that we shouldn't pursue. So yes, it is fearmongering - by spreading the fear of the reds, it's hyperbole, "obvious and intentional exaggeration," and if it's not a lie, then it's incompetence in that Cheney should have fact checked, and the OP should have seen that Cheney's statement was so false that he had to retract it.
You're right though, the OP made a slightly more accurate statement than Cheney who said, they ARE drilling off the florida coast. However, slightly more accurate than bullshit isn't truth. The fact that the Chinese hold a lease does not in any way mean that drilling is imminent, and it does not mean that drilling will ever happen.
The oil companies hold leases all over the world. A very small percentage of the land that is leased to someone for oil production will ever be utilized.
A lease DOES NOT mean that drilling is imminent. To wit, the US has leased large portions of it's coastline for off shore drilling, but as you say, we have a moratorium.
It's bullshit fear mongering, it's hyperbole, it's a lie, and we cannot allow comments we know are false to shape our energy position as in, "We know this because the Chinese are trying to tap into it off the coast of Cuba pretty much as close to FL as you can get."
It doesn't work. I'll admit to tailgating the occasional jerk-off who decides to park in the left hand lane.
Traffic courtesy goes both ways, if you can't be bothered to change into the empty right hand lane, I might not be bothered to give you the space you think you deserve. So anyways, when I'm tailgating someone, I'm paying attention. Tapping your brakes won't work, because I'm not going to brake unless your car actually slows down. I'm probably covering the brake pedal just in case, and if your too big an ass to change lanes, you won't commit to really brake checking anyway. So flash your brake lights all you want, I'm still going to sit on your bumper until you change lanes - hell I might even take the opportunity to move closer.
I do this because, (a) it's not your job to enforce the speed limit, (b) I want to pass you, (c) I'm supposed to pass you on the left. See, cars have a larger blind spot on the right, and if you decide to change lanes while I'm passing you on the right you might not see me. From my experience people are more likely to to stupid and dangerous things while being passed on the right than while being passed on the left. So be courteous and move over, and I'll be courteous and not tailgate.
And yes, I do give the benefit of the doubt, I don't tailgate immediately, and I don't tailgate when there is no space to the right.
It's called reckless driving, and it's against the law. Basically, if you ever think, "you know if I do this it'll cause an accident and it won't be my fault," you're wrong.
Will they be able to prove it? Maybe not, but that doesn't make it legal.
And if they should have gotten a 30 year fixed but ended up with a balloon rate arm because the broker misrepresented the terms - motivated by the obscene commissions routinely handed out on these loans?
When fraud happened it wasn't, by and large, institutional fraud. When fraud happened it was perpetrated by shady brokers misrepresenting the terms of a loan so that they could make fat commissions.
However, the fraud was enabled by an institutional game of three card monte. When business practices encourage bad actors to hurt the public, it is the responsibility of the government to step in, just as in false advertising and product safety cases.
nobody is arguing that we should be bailing out speculators who got screwed trying to flip houses.
What people are arguing is that rather than bailing out bear sterns we'd be better served by bailing out the family who got screwed into an ARM when they could have afforded a 30 year fixed (or maybe just barely couldn't), but are now losing their only home than bailing out Bear Sterns.
Slashdot Mirror
google the following:
Mortgage backed security
Sub-prime lending
Bear Stearns
Countrywide Financial
and get back to me.
Sigh, lets try again, "Between 1995 and 2004/05 violent crime, as measured by the BCS1, has fallen by 43 per cent"
The handgun ban was in 1997. If you still disagree please provide a source. Violent crime is way down since the 90s - whether this has anything to do with the ban is debatable, but what is not debatable is the significant decrease.
Worked great for the investment banks.
I call bullshit.
Handgun crime may have dropped by 50% since 1993, but only as a part of a larger trend.
In fact I think you'll find that in cities like DC, Chicago, LA and especially NY which had stricter gun control laws violent crime and handgun crime decreased even more. There has been a recent up-tick in some cities since 2005, that also has nothing to do with handguns or their availability.
I'll dispute it. source
p23p9
Oh, and then there's this: p72
So even if we grant that there has been a increase in reported handgun usage in crimes since the ban, we have to consider that it was merely a difference in reporting methodology. Also gun violence decreased between 2004-2005 and I would suspect that were the methodology consistent the UK would be below 1997 levels of gun violence.
Obviously I'm not saying that situation doesn't happen. What I'm saying is most violent crime in urban areas is between people who know each other or are involved in gang activity. For every grandmother who could protect herself from stranger assailants by purchasing a gun, there are three or four people who would bring a gun to a confrontation with a friend or relative (possibly their grandmother) who otherwise wouldn't have.
I'm not missing the point at all. While gang members may already have guns, your average joe wifebeater won't. Either way with the lifting of the ban gang members will have more access to more guns, and those prone to commit violence to their relatives will have access they wouldn't.
This says nothing of the constitutionality of the ban. While I'm all for gun owners being well trained not having a gun at all is still safer for the would-be gun owner than having one. The quickest way (statistically) to increase your chance of being shot - buy a gun.
How the hell is this modded off topic? Someone has their head up their ass.
Yeah, that's what'll happen.
Because as anyone who has ever lived in a large city knows the main form of crime is armed assailants killing innocent grandmothers in their bedrooms...
It's not as if violence between family members and gang violence accounts for the majority of violent crime. This is a very good thing, because if guns were inserted into relationships where people who know each other or are members of violent gangs are trying to hurt each other, one might expect the rate of homicides to go up...
or magic hat, or flying fish
The winds are much, much, much, much more constant and also stronger off shore than on.
Sorry for the hijack, but I'm going to attempt to insert some of the backstory here. See, I've lived in Delaware for the last 4 years (I'll gladly accept your pity)
Getting this deal done was a seemingly never ending political nightmare. Delmarva, the recently deregulated power company has fought against it tooth and nail. They seemed to have been under the impression that signing a 25 year power deal at a fixed price was a bad idea because you know, the price of oil might go down in the future...
Our governor was initially pushing a "clean coal" plant and against this deal. Blue Water Wind finally got the deal done due, in a large part, to netroots action pressuring the state legislature to force a deal down Delmarva's throat if they didn't start to negotiate in good faith. Delaware doesn't have ANY power generation, and buys all of it's power from other states. Delmarva wanted to continue to do this in spite of the rediculous congestion on our power infrastructure.
Tommywonk has been doing a fantastic job covering this issue, and if anyone wants anymore information I'd suggest they head there. (Surprisingly he doesn't have an update about the deal being inked yet)
Anyway, a warning to green power advocates, if this case is any indication, expect the entrenched interests to fight you every step of the way.
Not a fan of the 120 - I think it's trying a little too hard. Plus I've never really been a fan of beers with an ABV above 9%. The 90 is just right.
no, no, no. remember - Doppler effect. shclurrRRP - schlRRRrp - scHLRRrrp - SCHlrrrrp
The entire purpose of Cheney's false remark is to raise the specter of communist competition and spur the US into an action that we shouldn't pursue. So yes, it is fearmongering - by spreading the fear of the reds, it's hyperbole, "obvious and intentional exaggeration," and if it's not a lie, then it's incompetence in that Cheney should have fact checked, and the OP should have seen that Cheney's statement was so false that he had to retract it.
You're right though, the OP made a slightly more accurate statement than Cheney who said, they ARE drilling off the florida coast. However, slightly more accurate than bullshit isn't truth. The fact that the Chinese hold a lease does not in any way mean that drilling is imminent, and it does not mean that drilling will ever happen.
The oil companies hold leases all over the world. A very small percentage of the land that is leased to someone for oil production will ever be utilized.
nevermind - i should read my links more carefully - all those oil spills were from industrial sites, not offshore platforms... sorry.
oh yeah, no problems
A lease DOES NOT mean that drilling is imminent. To wit, the US has leased large portions of it's coastline for off shore drilling, but as you say, we have a moratorium.
It's bullshit fear mongering, it's hyperbole, it's a lie, and we cannot allow comments we know are false to shape our energy position as in, "We know this because the Chinese are trying to tap into it off the coast of Cuba pretty much as close to FL as you can get."
China is not drilling off of Cuba Lets not spread lies.
It doesn't work. I'll admit to tailgating the occasional jerk-off who decides to park in the left hand lane.
Traffic courtesy goes both ways, if you can't be bothered to change into the empty right hand lane, I might not be bothered to give you the space you think you deserve. So anyways, when I'm tailgating someone, I'm paying attention. Tapping your brakes won't work, because I'm not going to brake unless your car actually slows down. I'm probably covering the brake pedal just in case, and if your too big an ass to change lanes, you won't commit to really brake checking anyway. So flash your brake lights all you want, I'm still going to sit on your bumper until you change lanes - hell I might even take the opportunity to move closer.
I do this because, (a) it's not your job to enforce the speed limit, (b) I want to pass you, (c) I'm supposed to pass you on the left. See, cars have a larger blind spot on the right, and if you decide to change lanes while I'm passing you on the right you might not see me. From my experience people are more likely to to stupid and dangerous things while being passed on the right than while being passed on the left. So be courteous and move over, and I'll be courteous and not tailgate.
And yes, I do give the benefit of the doubt, I don't tailgate immediately, and I don't tailgate when there is no space to the right.
It's called reckless driving, and it's against the law. Basically, if you ever think, "you know if I do this it'll cause an accident and it won't be my fault," you're wrong.
Will they be able to prove it? Maybe not, but that doesn't make it legal.
Yes you are, if you're the PE who signed off on it.
And if they should have gotten a 30 year fixed but ended up with a balloon rate arm because the broker misrepresented the terms - motivated by the obscene commissions routinely handed out on these loans?
When fraud happened it wasn't, by and large, institutional fraud. When fraud happened it was perpetrated by shady brokers misrepresenting the terms of a loan so that they could make fat commissions.
However, the fraud was enabled by an institutional game of three card monte. When business practices encourage bad actors to hurt the public, it is the responsibility of the government to step in, just as in false advertising and product safety cases.
nobody is arguing that we should be bailing out speculators who got screwed trying to flip houses.
What people are arguing is that rather than bailing out bear sterns we'd be better served by bailing out the family who got screwed into an ARM when they could have afforded a 30 year fixed (or maybe just barely couldn't), but are now losing their only home than bailing out Bear Sterns.