Mr Mayor - I've had enough of the W.I. Day parade through Crown Heights North

Brooklynian » Forum » Crown Heights and Prospect Lefferts Gardens »

Mr Mayor - I've had enough of the W.I. Day parade through Crown Heights North

Share this!

12…4 Next »

wr
getting it
Joined: Jun '07
Posts: 94

I've had it with this West Indian 3 Day party tradition that ends for the worse each year.
Just look at all of the shootings in just one day (today) source: http://gothamist.com/map/

It is absolutely irresponsible of the City to let the parade happen after a full 2 days of parties and boozing. I heard people on the street early this morning (Monday) bragging about how drunk they were from the previous day.

I say turn the West Indian Day parade into one that is managed like the P.Rican day parade. Not over a 3 day holiday weekend - and keep the hours from 10-4pm. Disperse the crowds and make sure everyone moves on, and moves on early in the afternoon. This chaos would not be allowed on the Upper East Side (where I used to live).

Thank goodness the police responded so quickly to the gunshots this evening

I spoke to 5 longtime residents of CH who also think this parade has gotten out of hand and should be stopped. Or curtailed significantly.

CHN is my home, and its residents deserve to live in a safe environment.

# Posted 1 yr ago
Jenee
I have arrived!
Joined: May '11
Posts: 66

I sincerely agree with you, getting it.

It's sad that as a tax paying citizen and a resident who pays ridiculous amount in rent for the past 7 years of living here, that I had to leave out of town for the weekend.

I knew this party attracted the wrong crowd and I am sick of celebrating what is to me outright racism.

Now there are helicopters and police everywhere and I just got home. It's a shame that people can not party sober, but the culture encourages drinking and drugs, so what can you do.

Nice to hear someone else with a similar point of view as my own. In this bad economy, I think it was inevitable that people would get shot. It's really sad, but when you get people together for an all out party, I guess that guns are par for the course.

# Posted 1 yr ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,032

While some may believe that Brooklynian is the website with the most readers in Crown Heights, a far larger blog (crownheights.info) caters to the Lubavitch of Crown Heights.

Here is the site's coverage of this weekend's parade violence, with lots of reader comments:

http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=37481#c

http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=37470#c

Please note: One should not perceive CrownHeights.info as representing all of the Lubavitch of Crown Heights, nor does it represent itself as such.

Nor should one infer that by linking said articles, that I share the viewpoints of their writers or commenters.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 1 yr ago
brooklynleather
above average
Joined: Sep '06
Posts: 988

too much violence this weekend

# Posted 1 yr ago
bobbybrummel
lurker
Joined: Jan '07
Posts: 222

haters gonna hate

i'm betting 90% of these shootings were because of existing beef (i thought it fitting that the one i came closest to was right across the street from western BEEF). so a lot of things came to a head this weekend, but how do we know a lot of these shootings wouldn't have happened over any long weekend? if not now then in the coming months. yeah, 1 innocent bystander died, which is awful and scary. but 99.9% of the people attending these things don't have to worry about getting shot. you know, as long as they don't have an existing beef with somebody...

and otherwise, just be careful who you're wining with...

I've done a lot of lying in my time. I've lied to men who wear belts. I've lied to men who wear suspenders. But I'd never be so stupid as to lie to a man who wears both belt and suspenders.

# Posted 1 yr ago
bobbybrummel
lurker
Joined: Jan '07
Posts: 222

also, it's not like this is anything new:

http://www.we7.com/#/song/Calypso-Rose/Gun-Play-In-De-Parkway

new york needs even stricter gun laws. more social programs. more jobs. maybe crack down on nutcracker sales or something.

but west indian day isn't going anywhere. well the only thing that might take it down is if it's overrun by hipsters... which might happen if that new doc BELOW THE BRAIN becomes a hit.

I've done a lot of lying in my time. I've lied to men who wear belts. I've lied to men who wear suspenders. But I'd never be so stupid as to lie to a man who wears both belt and suspenders.

# Posted 1 yr ago
WhyFi
I'm Urban - recognize!
Joined: Jul '05
Posts: 5,268

bobbybrummel said:
new york needs even stricter gun laws. more social programs. more jobs. maybe crack down on nutcracker sales or something.

There was, of course, some coverage on MSN.com. In that article, Mayor Mike calls for tougher gun control. I thought that it was interesting (and scary) that the majority of comments on the article, from those in other parts of the country, were of the, "no! This is what happens when you strip the good people of their protection! An armed population is a safe population!" Yes, more guns is what NYC needs. Jezuz H.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

# Posted 1 yr ago
Capt. Planet
Life is for the living, so let's get it on!
Joined: Jan '06
Posts: 930

More guns equals more dead people. do the math.

# Posted 1 yr ago
CHCA
Crow Hill Community Association
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 84

CHCA with Council Member James will be holding a press conference to address the violence yesterday. We are just pulling things together now and will post an announcement later today.

If anyone would like to work directly with us on the issue of gun violence please email us or PM here

thank you

stay up to date, visit our:
website - http://www.crowhillcommunity.org
facebook page - http://tinyurl.com/op5l5o

# Posted 1 yr ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,032

Whyfi-
I fear it will only take the gun lobby a matter of time before they find a local resident who is opposed to gun control. Let's imagine the "ideal plaintiff and scenario" that could get NYC's gun control laws overturned:

A. The NRA finds an African American woman whose son was recently killed in a shooting.

B. Her son was an honors student.

C. She works as a Nurse.

D. She was present for the killing.

E. Prior to the killing, she had applied for a pistol ownership and an open carry permit, but was denied.

With the NRA's financial support and expertise, she files suit against NYC, alleging that her rights to own a gun and protect herself and her family have been violated by the city's gun laws. The city argues for continued gun control, but loses.

The average New Yorker then gains the right to own guns, and (in my opinion) all hell breaks lose because they have a lousy aim, and a low tolerance for frustration.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

bobbybrummel said:
new york needs even stricter gun laws.

Because the progenitors of the weekend gun violence had any concerns about what laws they were breaking?

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

Capt. Planet said:
More guns equals more dead people. do the math.

Sounds truthy for sure, but where do you get your data from?

The UK banned handguns completely in 1997 and violent crime has only increased since.

# Posted 1 yr ago
Boygabriel
M Train Devotee, G Train Appreciator
Joined: Nov '05
Posts: 4,431

eastbloc said:
Sounds truthy for sure, but where do you get your data from?

The UK banned handguns completely in 1997 and violent crime has only increased since.

gun crime or violent crime?

Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

Both firearms injuries and gun crime went up substantially after the ban went into effect in the UK, while violent crime also increased.

Keeping law-abiding citizens from owning weapons does nothing to reduce crime. If anything, it makes the criminals more brazen knowing they are unlikely to face a significant deterrent.

# Posted 1 yr ago
BKChickie
Bagel Hole Girl
Joined: Mar '08
Posts: 1,088

bobbybrummel said:
haters gonna hate

but 99.9% of the people attending these things don't have to worry about getting shot.

I do not like these shooting reports at all. What's up with a cultural event and celebration where people have to wonder if they'll be shot by attending? What's up with a community that sees that kind of risk as acceptable? That is nowhere I want to be.

# Posted 1 yr ago
Boygabriel
M Train Devotee, G Train Appreciator
Joined: Nov '05
Posts: 4,431

If anything, it makes the criminals more brazen knowing they are unlikely to face a significant deterrent.

This seems like a pretty big assumption.

And I'm not necessarily against legal, sane gun ownership. But ownership laws in this country are a joke.

Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org

# Posted 1 yr ago
BKChickie
Bagel Hole Girl
Joined: Mar '08
Posts: 1,088

Serious question: what is they typical position of the NYPD on an event like this? My neighborhood was swarming with cops yesterday (and, a very sincere thank you to the NYPD for making me feel safe, it was reassuring seeing all of you, and I appreciated it.)

Seems like the NYPD union might look at these events as a way to put their members at additional (unnecessary?) risk and seek to curtail them.

# Posted 1 yr ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,032

Eastbloc-
I agree there are instances in which an armed citizen can stop and/or deter crime.

However, in the most publicized instance of the weekend (the one at Franklin and Park) we had two armed guys shooting at each other. So, I find the idea that they would be "deterred" if they knew their opponent was likely to be armed to be weak.

In addition, the neighborhood was also flooded with police since Saturday. Despite being a pretty good shot, I think the situation would have been made worse if I (or you, or someone else) had been there, pulled out our licensed handgun and tried to put a few projectiles into one of the shooters.

From my understanding, the other instances that occurred along the parade route and at Jourvet were similar: Young men were willing to pull out a weapon and attempt to shoot an opponent despite them having a reasonable belief that their opponent would be armed, and/or the presence of bystanders who were visibly carrying firearms.

In each shooting, the bystanders were not only known to be armed, but known to be trained in effective and safe gun use. The bystanders were police.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

Boygabriel said:

If anything, it makes the criminals more brazen knowing they are unlikely to face a significant deterrent.

This seems like a pretty big assumption.

It's not an assumption.

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Source:

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). By James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994).

And I'm not necessarily against legal, sane gun ownership. But ownership laws in this country are a joke.

I tend to agree, though perhaps not for the same reasons. There are very few laws regulating ownership at a federal level. They're very loose in some states, and overly strict in others. That's a dichotomy that lends itself to the situation we have in New York, where illegal guns are easy to get, while legal possession is highly restricted.

I'm not opposed to gun registration or a federally-consistent set of rules that makes it universally straightforward for citizens to have guns for sport and self-defense while making it difficult for them to be obtained by felons.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

whynot_31 said:
Eastbloc-
I agree there are instances in which an armed citizen can stop and/or deter crime.
...
In all cases this weekend, the shootings seemed to have taken place despite the presence of bystanders were visibly carrying their weapons, and known to be trained in effective and safe gun use; the bystanders were police.

I wasn't suggesting this weekend's violence was preventable by an armed citizenry -- merely that increased gun control would _not_ have prevented it at all.

Had I been present and armed and _not_ a target during this event I would be obliged to get to cover and let the police do their jobs, not draw and attempt to participate myself.

Luckily, the police _were_ present, armed, and trained, unlike their poor hapless counterparts in the UK.

Fear of guns doesn't make them go away.

# Posted 1 yr ago
Idlewild
rocking it
Joined: Sep '05
Posts: 2,795

There really isn't a solution to illegal gun ownership. Even if Constitutional rights concerning Search & Seizure were null & void, guns will still find their way in. And as much asI support gun ownership and self-defense, the Second Amendment is not right for citizens to own firearms. If anything, it gives state governors the authority, if not the duty, to form national guards to act against insurrections by said armed citizens.

"Clamato! Straight Up! No chasah!

# Posted 1 yr ago
spnder
getting it
Joined: May '09
Posts: 130

"The UK banned handguns completely in 1997 and violent crime has only increased since."

I don't think you can even compare the US and UK in this regard. It's a different country with a markedly different gun culture and vastly different levels of gun violence. Gun violence still remains far, far below that of the US. I don't know what is making it continue to grow, but you can't just look at the ban and definitively say it's been a failure there, much less extrapolate those effects to here.

# Posted 1 yr ago
homeowner
mod
Joined: Jan '06
Posts: 3,003

Unfortunately y'all are trying to analyze this problem from the perspective of sane and rational decision-making. But clearly, someone that would walk into his home and grab a weapon (making it very easy to identify who he was), walk outside and fire multiple shots into a crowd of people (making it very likely he would hit someone other than his intended target), and do all of that with scores of police standing within several hundred yards(making his capture an almost certainty) isn't exactly the poster child for rational thought.

You should instead look at this through the lens of insanity. So if its your intention to shoot that M'fer in front of your home with your illegal handgun no matter who is around and what the consequenses to yourself or others are, how do you deter that crime?

# Posted 1 yr ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,032

Criminals often believe that "it is better to be caught with a gun than without one"

If your opponent is a fellow criminal, the penalty for being unarmed when you encounter his is death.

If your opponent is a cop, the penalty for being armed when you encounter him is a few years in prison.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

spnder said:
"The UK banned handguns completely in 1997 and violent crime has only increased since."

I don't think you can even compare the US and UK in this regard. It's a different country with a markedly different gun culture and vastly different levels of gun violence. Gun violence still remains far, far below that of the US. I don't know what is making it continue to grow, but you can't just look at the ban and definitively say it's been a failure there, much less extrapolate those effects to here.

Well, I can look at evidence of places which have instituted gun bans, or I can blithely equivocate based on no evidence at all.

I didn't use the statistics derived from the DC and Chicago gun bans or the concealed-carry programs in many US states because the varying laws in neighboring areas can be construed as having an influence that can't be controlled for easily in studies.

Suffice it to say that I'm not aware of any contemporary gun control program anywhere that has effectively reduced gun crime, let alone violent crime.

# Posted 1 yr ago
WhyFi
I'm Urban - recognize!
Joined: Jul '05
Posts: 5,268

eastbloc said:
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

This "statistic" is so fundamentally flawed that's it's not even close to being pertinent. I can only believe that it's included because it *looks* like the most statistically significant number to back up a position.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

# Posted 1 yr ago
tateinbk
above average
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 498

bkChickie: Serious question: what is they typical position of the NYPD on an event like this? My neighborhood was swarming with cops yesterday (and, a very sincere thank you to the NYPD for making me feel safe, it was reassuring seeing all of you, and I appreciated it.)

based on the above mentioned (somewhere on this site) blog for only cops, what the cops think isn't very nice.
http://theerant.yuku.com/topic/44047/Cop-Shot-w-in-confines-77pct?page=1

# Posted 1 yr ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,032

eastbloc » Suffice it to say that I'm not aware of any contemporary gun control program anywhere that has effectively reduced gun crime, let alone violent crime.

I believe the research on places that now allow regular citizens to carry pistols to be similarly inconclusive.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

homeowner said:
Unfortunately y'all are trying to analyze this problem from the perspective of sane and rational decision-making. But clearly, someone that would walk into his home and grab a weapon (making it very easy to identify who he was), walk outside and fire multiple shots into a crowd of people (making it very likely he would hit someone other than his intended target), and do all of that with scores of police standing within several hundred yards(making his capture an almost certainty) isn't exactly the poster child for rational thought.

You should instead look at this through the lens of insanity. So if its your intention to shoot that M'fer in front of your home with your illegal handgun no matter who is around and what the consequenses to yourself or others are, how do you deter that crime?

That's a question probably more for economists, psychologists, and sociologists than it is for legislators and police.

A committed murderer will just as soon resort to a steak knife. I see no evidence that the mere presence of a gun leads people to commit brazen daylight homicides.

# Posted 1 yr ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,032

tate » based on the above mentioned (somewhere on this site) blog for only cops, what the cops think isn't very nice.
http://theerant.yuku.com/topic/44047/Cop-Shot-w-in-confines-77pct?page=1

Tate, et al-
I posted that link. Although only active and retired police officers can post, one should be careful not to assume that the members of that message board represent anyone but themselves.

...yes, it is often an interesting and disturbing read.

However, it also provides "crime news" much quicker than the mainstream media. As such, it comes in handy....

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

whynot_31 said:

eastbloc » Suffice it to say that I'm not aware of any contemporary gun control program anywhere that has effectively reduced gun crime, let alone violent crime.

I believe the research on places that now allow regular citizens to carry pistols to be similarly inconclusive.

I don't disagree, but if there is not a demonstrable effect on safety and crime in either case, why the push more government control and less personal freedom? Seems far more political than practical to me.

# Posted 1 yr ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,032

eastbloc said:
I don't disagree, but if there is not a demonstrable effect on safety and crime in either case, why the push more government control and less personal freedom? Seems far more political than practical to me.

I'll be the first to admit we live in an emotional, not a practical country. ....people really want to believe gun control stops senseless violence.

I really want a pony.

Thankfully there are no conflicting rules about me having a right to have a pony, and not being allowed to have a pony in the city.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

whynot_31 said:
I'll be the first to admit we live in an emotional, not a practical country. ....people really want to believe gun control stops senseless violence.

(I really want a pony)

_Some_ people do. The majority are for sensible gun laws, which is why concealed-carry laws are growing in popularity.

As city-dwellers in a liberal part of the country, it might seem to us like the majority of people fear and loathe guns, but it's far from the truth.

As someone who once accepted these proclamations at face value, and has since gained a firearms education, the emotional manipulations of the gun-control lobby have become increasingly transparent and perfidious to me.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

WhyFi said:
This "statistic" is so fundamentally flawed that's it's not even close to being pertinent. I can only believe that it's included because it *looks* like the most statistically significant number to back up a position.

What is it not pertinent to? Our shooting on Franklin and Park, or one of the potential effects of responsible gun ownership? And am I to take your disbelief as evidence of its absurdity, ipso facto?

# Posted 1 yr ago
armchair_warrior
retsop cixelsyd
Joined: Dec '05
Posts: 7,946

gun control doesn't work lol, it never will work on a local level. if you got 1000 different gun rules from a 1000 different states and cities etc.. never gonna work cause state and city borders are very porous.

pointless to the point where the cops and criminals and rich and connected are the only ones who have guns. leaves the citizens unarmed at the mercy of the criminal/authority figures.

this happened in the LA riots, the cops just stood there while the criminal elements burn down a city. only people fighting back where shop owners.

for example if i wanted to get a gun, would be very difficult and would cost money to hire a lawyer who specialize in getting permit and reasons for having it.

I never understood the liberal fear of guns. If its still in the books might as well equalize yourself with it criminal elements.

gun control only works in a national scale.

if people really want to have a gun. you can.

for example i can make a gun at home right now with parts in probably few mins or if you included harding of the sheet metal probably hour or 2 for a long lasting assault rifle. or i could make a temp assault rifle for short term in 5 mins. hand gun in few mins.

you can have all the legal parts :p, metal isn't illegal, but the receiver of gun/rifle etc.. is the gun. receiver is pretty easy to make or have a 80%(which is legal) just need to bend or cut holes etc.. into that in a few mins and slap the parts and put bullets into it...

if people ban guns, places like china you would have knife deaths. but with knife deaths, person does have a better chance of self defense. a violent population is gonna find ways to kill regardless.

i'm for total gun control not the half ass measures nyc has. pointless.

Fight white guilt and injustice by smoking tax free guilt free Reservation Smokes or go gamble in a Native Casino.
I like to stick it to The Man, The Man happens to be Liberal in NYC(power Structure).

# Posted 1 yr ago
armchair_warrior
retsop cixelsyd
Joined: Dec '05
Posts: 7,946

how bout we banned criminals and their kids ? lol i'm for it.

Fight white guilt and injustice by smoking tax free guilt free Reservation Smokes or go gamble in a Native Casino.
I like to stick it to The Man, The Man happens to be Liberal in NYC(power Structure).

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

As you pointed out, you can make a gun easily at a machine shop. So by total gun control, do you mean we should strictly control machine tools as well?

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

armchair_warrior said:
how bout we banned criminals and their kids ? lol i'm for it.

Now you're talkin'

# Posted 1 yr ago
armchair_warrior
retsop cixelsyd
Joined: Dec '05
Posts: 7,946

oh eastloc you got me wrong, you don't need a machine shop lol. i'm talking about simply tools. anyone can make them, its pretty simple. do you think the guys in Afghanistan use machine tools? you can do it with hand tools.

Fight white guilt and injustice by smoking tax free guilt free Reservation Smokes or go gamble in a Native Casino.
I like to stick it to The Man, The Man happens to be Liberal in NYC(power Structure).

# Posted 1 yr ago
armchair_warrior
retsop cixelsyd
Joined: Dec '05
Posts: 7,946

I'm for total gun national gun control, i really want to use my swords on these dastardly criminals and lop so heads off :p. other wise guns for all. either or nothing in between right now doesn't work.

Fight white guilt and injustice by smoking tax free guilt free Reservation Smokes or go gamble in a Native Casino.
I like to stick it to The Man, The Man happens to be Liberal in NYC(power Structure).

# Posted 1 yr ago
OnEasternParkway
getting it
Joined: Dec '05
Posts: 163

I'm curious as to the steps that the Mayor thinks should be taken to effectively fight illegal gun ownership.

Otherwise, turning the weekend's events into a referendum on gun control seems to be a way to avoid the needed and real conversations surrounding the factors that play into the violence.

# Posted 1 yr ago
tateinbk
above average
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 498

Armchair Warrior,

You should consider reading "Fist Stick Knife Gun: A Personal History of Violence" by Geoffrey Canada. It's one of the more interesting books I had to in high school. Frankly, it's not a bad read for anyone debating gun violence.

# Posted 1 yr ago
Boygabriel
M Train Devotee, G Train Appreciator
Joined: Nov '05
Posts: 4,431

OnEasternParkway said:
I'm curious as to the steps that the Mayor thinks should be taken to effectively fight illegal gun ownership.

Otherwise, turning the weekend's events into a referendum on gun control seems to be a way to avoid the needed and real conversations surrounding the factors that play into the violence.

Yeah I'm not holding my breath on Bloomberg acknowledging how counter-productive it is to treat entire neighborhoods like criminals and just throw everyone in jail.

But hey, he, like every other politician, gets to "look tough" while the real issues of violence go largely unaddressed on the executive level.

Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org

# Posted 1 yr ago
WhyFi
I'm Urban - recognize!
Joined: Jul '05
Posts: 5,268

eastbloc said:
What is it not pertinent to? Our shooting on Franklin and Park, or one of the potential effects of responsible gun ownership? And am I to take your disbelief as evidence of its absurdity, ipso facto?

What is it not pertinent to? Anything. That 69% of any population personally knows someone who has <fill in the blank>, is irrelevant. You don't know how much overlap there is in social circles - maybe that 69% of the population all knows the same, popular guy. You just can't draw any conclusions from a number like that, so it's worthless.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

# Posted 1 yr ago
Watcher
rookie newb
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 19

Couldn't the parade be moved somewhere else that doesn't so disrupt the lives of residents? Every year there is some gunplay, although this year is of course particularly bad.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

OnEasternParkway said:
I'm curious as to the steps that the Mayor thinks should be taken to effectively fight illegal gun ownership.

Otherwise, turning the weekend's events into a referendum on gun control seems to be a way to avoid the needed and real conversations surrounding the factors that play into the violence.

WhyFi said:
What is it not pertinent to? Anything. That 69% of any population personally knows someone who has <fill in the blank>, is irrelevant. You don't know how much overlap there is in social circles - maybe that 69% of the population all knows the same, popular guy. You just can't draw any conclusions from a number like that, so it's worthless.

The actual question was more specifically phrased:

"[H]ave any of the criminals you have known personally ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No, none: 31%, Yes, but only one: 10%, Yes, a few: 48%, Yes, many: 11%, (N) = (1627)"

In conjunction with 34% of felons in the study reporting having _themselves_ been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim, it hardly seems like a stretch.

And it certainly beats Capt. Planet's "do the math" fallacy.

# Posted 1 yr ago
WhyFi
I'm Urban - recognize!
Joined: Jul '05
Posts: 5,268

eastbloc said:
The actual question was more specifically phrased:

"[H]ave any of the criminals you have known personally ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No, none: 31%, Yes, but only one: 10%, Yes, a few: 48%, Yes, many: 11%, (N) = (1627)"

In conjunction with 34% of felons in the study reporting having _themselves_ been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim, it hardly seems like a stretch.

And it certainly beats Capt. Planet's "do the math" fallacy.

No - the specific stat that I highlighted has NO value and thus it adds nothing "in conjunction with" anything else. The percentage of felons *personally* scared off, etc has SOME value, but that's still not telling - where's the flip side of that question? Where's the "have you personally felt empowered by the possession of a firearm in such a way that you mugged/assaulted/etc someone that you wouldn't have, otherwise?"

Making a decision based on no numbers is just as bad as making a decision based on bad numbers.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

# Posted 1 yr ago
bohuma
above average
Joined: Aug '08
Posts: 466

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

# Posted 1 yr ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

WhyFi said:
Where's the "have you personally felt empowered by the possession of a firearm in such a way that you mugged/assaulted/etc someone that you wouldn't have, otherwise?"

This would be a salient point -- if we were discussing whether not it made sense to arm criminals.

I don't think anyone's arguing that, though.

# Posted 1 yr ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

armchair_warrior said:
how bout we banned criminals and their kids ? lol i'm for it.

or ban criminals from having kids...

# Posted 1 yr ago