NIBRS would be able to tell you exactly what % of reported crime is gun crime and what is typically used. Let me see if I can find a chart.
I will vote for him as i think he's done an acceptable job.
I will vote for him, even though he's done a poor job so far.
I will vote for him, as the circumstances have not favored him.
I will not vote for him as he's done a poor job.
I will not vote for him for different reasons than the previous option.
I won't vote, because i won't vote the lesser of two evils.
I won't vote for different reasons than the previous option.
NIBRS would be able to tell you exactly what % of reported crime is gun crime and what is typically used. Let me see if I can find a chart.
Alright so here is an unfinished version of a Criminal Justice technology project showing NIBRS data of recorded crime using firearms from 1993-2001. It's the data that we were told to use for the project and it's kinda hard to compile, actually impossible for a single person, so here take it for what it's worth. Most people should know that crime in general has gone way down in years since.
It's table breaking and not cropped well but w/e. It's from a couple of years back.
Spoiler: show
This reminds me of this one time when some new MBA grad tried to demonstrate in my Law&Ethics class how abortions caused a direct drop in crime rates during the 90's. Crime data can be manipulated too easily to support whatever flavor of agenda politicians are pushing at the time.
Juking the stats is so Wire Season 3.
If alcohol was only purchased and used by .01% of America's population, and there were a consistent number of innocent people being killed yearly by their use of alcohol... yeah, I would be.
Of course, I have no idea what % of the population would purchase/use an assault rifle. But I'd imagine .01% isn't very unreasonable (31,000 people).
In terms of the chart I posted, nothing to really manipulate. NIBRS data is a simple concept: Every time a police officer files a piece of paperwork, they transmit a copy to the FBI. The FBI is responsible for compiling and administrating the database. They take the data of all reported crime and separate it by category, type of offense, how it was committed and any other reported attribute of the crime and plug it into the database where the FBI takes over. The database is primarily the reason we are able to track crime stats accurately in the first place as it removes the discrepancies created by allowing state agencies to administrate the database. Nearly every law enforcement agencies participates because if they don't, they are excluded from federal handouts/aid. Disclaimer: There are agencies that don't participate and not all crime is reported so it's obviously not 100% accurate. The stats in the chart are a small but direct representation of reported firearm violence from 1993-2001 and can only be interpreted one way. They were particular stats that I chose about reported incidents of crime to build my project on.
Edit: This information is publicly available on the FBI's website as well as an even more detailed overview of the NIBRS database.
Edit2: I should add that all we were tasked with doing for the project was taking the NIBRS data and displaying it visually. Then later using SBSS to create a map of crime also using the data.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr#ucr_nibrsNational Incident-Based Reporting System
In response to law enforcement's need for more flexible, in-depth data, the UCR Program formulated the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). NIBRS presents comprehensive, detailed information about crime incidents to law enforcement, researchers, governmental planners, students of crime, and the general public. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division conducted the pilot demonstration of this program in 1987. Since then, implementation of NIBRS has been commensurate with the resources, abilities, and limitations of the contributing law enforcement agencies. Although participation grows steadily, data is still not pervasive enough to make broad generalizations about crime in the United States. However, several NIBRS studies and monographs are available on this site that demonstrate the great utility of NIBRS. Data collection and submission guidelines and NIBRS Frequently Asked Questions and NIBRS Incident Specific Questions are available as well to help law enforcement agencies with the implementation of and participation in NIBRS.
Developments in the NIBRS
NIBRS Categories (pdf)
The Measurement of White-Collar Crime Using Uniform Crime Reporting Data (pdf)
Victims and Offenders: a New UCR Supplement to Present Incident-Based Data from Participating Agencies (pdf)
Topical Study: The Structure of Family Violence: An Analysis of Selected Incidents (pdf)
Crime in Schools and Colleges: a Study of Offenders and Arrestees Reported Via "National Incident-Based Reporting System Data (pdf)"
ok your 2nd response there was ever so slightly better, and I'll get to it, but I just have to point out...
your first response to a study that concluded the ban prevented ~60k crimes is a graph showing gun violence in general went down over that same time?
lol...
If that includes 99, 13 of those 16 assault weapon murders in school were Columbine.
3 of the 4 guns were bought legally for them, but 2 of those were shotguns sawed off making them illegal assault weapons.
Drunk driving is actually a pretty good analogy - and here's why:
Crashing your car into other cars and/or people is already illegal, just like murdering people with an assault weapon is illegal. Now, driving while drunk doesn't have to be illegal - if you decide to make it illegal you're saying that driving while drunk is a serious threat to other people on the road, so much so that the restriction of freedom imposed by making it illegal to drink and drive is worth the clear danger posed by drunken drivers.
Personally, I think the DUI limit should be .10, not .08, but in general I agree with laws making drunken driving illegal.
In terms of assault weapons ownership, I do not feel the owning of an assault weapon to be a clear danger by any means to general welfare by people owning assault weapons.
Banning assault weapons because you don't want people murdering others with them would be more akin to banning alcohol because you don't want people to drive drunk - restricting a broad range of activity (simple ownership/general drinking) trying to curb a very specific threat (murdering people/driving while drunk). This "banning a wide range of otherwise legal activities in order to attempt to further curb the frequency of a specific, already illegal activity" is distasteful to me.
You might have a remotely valid argument if assault weapons had some use other than killing people.
hurrr durr but my tmi is 1.4 and I like to feel like FUCKING RAMBO while I shoot piles of dirt
So Obama tells Israel to back the fuck up. Apparently this makes him a Muslim now. Why is this country so retarded? Oh, that's right. Lack of education.
Via Autoblog,
As expected, a Democratic bill that would have put an end to the multi-billion-dollar annual tax subsidies for oil companies Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil failed to overcome a Republican filibuster on Tuesday evening. The heavily partisan 52-in-favor, 48-against vote, fell eight shy of the 60 required to bring the bill to the floor.
If passed, the bill would have eliminated $12 billion in subsidies for production of oil within the U.S. and cut $6 billion in credits for taxes that oil companies pay to foreign governments. Finally, the bill would have put an end to oil companies writing off some drilling and development costs.
According to the Huffington Post, Republicans say that the bill unfairly singles out oil companies and would hinder their ability to hire American workers, thus leading to reduced oil production and increased dependence on foreign oil. Democrats argue that subsidies are unnecessary given that oil companies typically report profits in the multi-billion dollar range.
Three Democrats – Mary Landrieu (D-LA, pictured), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) – voted with Republicans to maintain the subsidies, while Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) sided with the Democrats.
As this chart – based on data from the Center for Responsive Politics – shows, the 48 senators who voted with the oil industry received over $21 million in oil-related contributions, while the 52 senators who voted to eliminate subsidies received a mere $5.4 million. Looks like money talks.
Damn you Tommy Two Tones!