Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[WAR41]

Here's what I don't understand.  I live in NYC, Manhattan to be exact.  NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  There is no way I could get a permit for a handgun if I wanted one and I wouldn't be given a reason why I was rejected.  This sounds like gun control could be a local government issue judging by the stricter laws in NYC, Chicago, etc.  Why don't all local governments just do this themselves if they want to?  Honest question. 

[chineseblues]

 Also, you have some pistols that can shoot as fast as an AR-15 or a semi automatic hunting rifle. Do we ban those too?

Yes. There is no need for that kind of firepower in civilian hands period. And don't give me that "well regulated militia" bullshit. Some hick from Kentucky or bumfuck nowhere with his ar-15 isn't gonna do shit against a tank or jet or predator drone. It's 2018, time to start living in it folks.

[JAEBALL]

Forget what side of the coin you fall on gun control or politics in general...

Why is the GOP simply ok with a foreign power attacking our democracy?

Because that is what happened here... or is it all the individuals pleading guilty just fake news

Trump has turned us in to Putins bitch ... surely all real proud conservatives find that appalling right?

[JAEBALL]

Here's what I don't understand.  I live in NYC, Manhattan to be exact.  NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  There is no way I could get a permit for a handgun if I wanted one and I wouldn't be given a reason why I was rejected.  This sounds like gun control could be a local government issue judging by the stricter laws in NYC, Chicago, etc.  Why don't all local governments just do this themselves if they want to?  Honest question. 

I am a nyc guy too.. I see ur point

But areas in the south or middle of the country simply don?t want any roadblocks to people getting their hands on any gun possible ...

I think it?s insane... but they obviously don?t ha

[tim_m]

As far as semi auto guns - I am not for banning them. Granted I am not a hunter and I don't own a gun, but wouldn't someone hunting a deer want to be able to fire off several shots in quick succession if they are trying to hit a moving target?  Getting rid of 30 round magazines makes sense to me. If you shoot an animal 30x would there be anything left to eat? It isnt too difficult to change out a 10 round magazine if you need more bullets during a day of hunting.

 Also, you have some pistols that can shoot as fast as an AR-15 or a semi automatic hunting rifle. Do we ban those too?

I am certainly for raising the age to 21 to buy any gun as there is a maturity level that is required to handle a gun responsibly. And very tough background checks.  This doesn't take away any rights under the 2nd amendment.

How would you feel about possibly some kind of registry, insurance and mandatory training/safety classes before you can even take possession of the gun?

[tim_m]

Another thing that needs to be looked at that no one has mentioned is the gun show loophole.

[pilferk]

I am a nyc guy too.. I see ur point

But areas in the south or middle of the country simply don?t want any roadblocks to people getting their hands on any gun possible ...

I think it?s insane... but they obviously don?t ha

NYC, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, has seen their violent crime rates plummet.  They are historically low.

Chicago, with laws that are just slightly less restrictive (and they are state laws, mostly, not city ordinances), has actually seen an INCREASE in violent crime.

So, what's the difference?

1) Chicago actually is coming off an enforced hand gun ban that was declared unconstitutional in 2008 (and reaffirmed in 2010).  In addition, in 2013, Chicago ENDED their gun registry program.  So, while their state laws are strict (and there is an assault weapon ban in Cook County), they are not AS STRICT as NYC. And, in fact, the trend has been toward less strict laws.

2) Enforcement has been generally lax, in Chicago.  Police do not routinely seize and remove weapons they find, nor do they use existing state laws to arrest and prosecute.  This is taken directly from city arrest/arraignment records.  Most gun charges within the city are brought as ancillary charges, not as main charges, and guns that are confiscated are done in conjunction with charges stemming from other crimes.  Compare this with NYC, who routinely prosecutes and confiscates possession of those illegal weapons as a primary charge.

3) Geography: In Chicago, something like 45% of all "illegal" weapons used in committing a crime come from out of state, most from Indiana, though a sizable amount from Wisconsin.  These two states have amongst the most lax gun laws in the U.S.  Compare that with NYC, who's surrounding states have MUCH tougher laws.  In that state, less than 15% of confiscated weapons were purchased out of state. By the by...this is why "state based lawmaking" won't solve the problem as well.

Here's the kicker. An assault weapons ban is not going to reduce your run of the mill gun violence.  Most gun violence is perpetrated by hand guns (specifically 9mm hand guns).

What it probably will do (and I base this on the results of the '94 AW ban) is reduce MCI (mass casualty incidents) and decrease the severity of the incidents that do occur.  In recent memory, many (most?) MCI's involve an assault rifle.  It would also give law enforcement yet another tool to arrest "bad guys", and to get more guns used in crimes off the streets and into the rubbish pile.

It has the additional benefit of being declared completely constitutional after multiple challenges to the SC, both at a federal and state level.

The other thing to keep in mind, and I get to see this first hand given my profession: A shot from an AR-15 is about 65% less survivable than a being shot by a hand gun.  The AR-15 fires it's bullets at just about triple the velocity of a handgun...and it's bullets typically have less mass (though more surface area on impact) than a handgun.  Even MOST hunting rifles use a higher caliber bullet, specifically because they lead to a more humane (and easier 1 shot) kill.

Also, keep in mind, there's nothing inherently wrong with "semi-automatic" on it's own, for hunting (I prefer a bolt action, but....). Especially if you're hunting bigger game or predators (I carry a shot gun when in woods I don't know well, because we have bear up here).  But "semi-automatic" does not translate into "assault" by itself.

[WAR41]

I am a nyc guy too.. I see ur point

But areas in the south or middle of the country simply don?t want any roadblocks to people getting their hands on any gun possible ...

I think it?s insane... but they obviously don?t ha

NYC, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, has seen their violent crime rates plummet.  They are historically low.

Chicago, with laws that are just slightly less restrictive (and they are state laws, mostly, not city ordinances), has actually seen an INCREASE in violent crime.

So, what's the difference?

1) Chicago actually is coming off an enforced hand gun ban that was declared unconstitutional in 2008 (and reaffirmed in 2010).  In addition, in 2013, Chicago ENDED their gun registry program.  So, while their state laws are strict (and there is an assault weapon ban in Cook County), they are not AS STRICT as NYC. And, in fact, the trend has been toward less strict laws.

2) Enforcement has been generally lax, in Chicago.  Police do not routinely seize and remove weapons they find, nor do they use existing state laws to arrest and prosecute.  This is taken directly from city arrest/arraignment records.  Most gun charges within the city are brought as ancillary charges, not as main charges, and guns that are confiscated are done in conjunction with charges stemming from other crimes.  Compare this with NYC, who routinely prosecutes and confiscates possession of those illegal weapons as a primary charge.

3) Geography: In Chicago, something like 45% of all "illegal" weapons used in committing a crime come from out of state, most from Indiana, though a sizable amount from Wisconsin.  These two states have amongst the most lax gun laws in the U.S.  Compare that with NYC, who's surrounding states have MUCH tougher laws.  In that state, less than 15% of confiscated weapons were purchased out of state. By the by...this is why "state based lawmaking" won't solve the problem as well.

Here's the kicker. An assault weapons ban is not going to reduce your run of the mill gun violence.  Most gun violence is perpetrated by hand guns (specifically 9mm hand guns).

What it probably will do (and I base this on the results of the '94 AW ban) is reduce MCI (mass casualty incidents) and decrease the severity of the incidents that do occur.  In recent memory, many (most?) MCI's involve an assault rifle.  It would also give law enforcement yet another tool to arrest "bad guys", and to get more guns used in crimes off the streets and into the rubbish pile.

It has the additional benefit of being declared completely constitutional after multiple challenges to the SC, both at a federal and state level.

The other thing to keep in mind, and I get to see this first hand given my profession: A shot from an AR-15 is about 65% less survivable than a being shot by a hand gun.  The AR-15 fires it's bullets at just about triple the velocity of a handgun...and it's bullets typically have less mass (though more surface area on impact) than a handgun.  Even MOST hunting rifles use a higher caliber bullet, specifically because they lead to a more humane (and easier 1 shot) kill.

Also, keep in mind, there's nothing inherently wrong with "semi-automatic" on it's own, for hunting (I prefer a bolt action, but....). Especially if you're hunting bigger game or predators (I carry a shot gun when in woods I don't know well, because we have bear up here).  But "semi-automatic" does not translate into "assault" by itself.

I just wanted to respond to what I bolded above.  My wife's cousin is a member of the NYPD and a member of the SWAT team.  He has told us on multiple occasions that the new crime statistics are bogus.  In order to paint a positive light on De Blasio's removal of stop and frisk he instructed the NYPD to reclassify certain crimes and refrain from reporting others, such as certain types of domestic disputes.  Because of that we have now seen the decline in 'violent crime' being reported. 

A second big reason that people are not mentioning is the extreme hyper-gentrification being seen in NYC.  More luxury housing and more wealth will lead to a decline in the rate of violent crime.  I live here and the new residential construction in NYC is out of control.  De Blasio ran on "the tale of two cities" and that wealth gap is only increasing.  Violent crime inevitably goes down with more wealthy residents moving in and more lower class/poor moving out. 

[pilferk]

I am a nyc guy too.. I see ur point

But areas in the south or middle of the country simply don?t want any roadblocks to people getting their hands on any gun possible ...

I think it?s insane... but they obviously don?t ha

NYC, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, has seen their violent crime rates plummet.  They are historically low.

Chicago, with laws that are just slightly less restrictive (and they are state laws, mostly, not city ordinances), has actually seen an INCREASE in violent crime.

So, what's the difference?

1) Chicago actually is coming off an enforced hand gun ban that was declared unconstitutional in 2008 (and reaffirmed in 2010).  In addition, in 2013, Chicago ENDED their gun registry program.  So, while their state laws are strict (and there is an assault weapon ban in Cook County), they are not AS STRICT as NYC. And, in fact, the trend has been toward less strict laws.

2) Enforcement has been generally lax, in Chicago.  Police do not routinely seize and remove weapons they find, nor do they use existing state laws to arrest and prosecute.  This is taken directly from city arrest/arraignment records.  Most gun charges within the city are brought as ancillary charges, not as main charges, and guns that are confiscated are done in conjunction with charges stemming from other crimes.  Compare this with NYC, who routinely prosecutes and confiscates possession of those illegal weapons as a primary charge.

3) Geography: In Chicago, something like 45% of all "illegal" weapons used in committing a crime come from out of state, most from Indiana, though a sizable amount from Wisconsin.  These two states have amongst the most lax gun laws in the U.S.  Compare that with NYC, who's surrounding states have MUCH tougher laws.  In that state, less than 15% of confiscated weapons were purchased out of state. By the by...this is why "state based lawmaking" won't solve the problem as well.

Here's the kicker. An assault weapons ban is not going to reduce your run of the mill gun violence.  Most gun violence is perpetrated by hand guns (specifically 9mm hand guns).

What it probably will do (and I base this on the results of the '94 AW ban) is reduce MCI (mass casualty incidents) and decrease the severity of the incidents that do occur.  In recent memory, many (most?) MCI's involve an assault rifle.  It would also give law enforcement yet another tool to arrest "bad guys", and to get more guns used in crimes off the streets and into the rubbish pile.

It has the additional benefit of being declared completely constitutional after multiple challenges to the SC, both at a federal and state level.

The other thing to keep in mind, and I get to see this first hand given my profession: A shot from an AR-15 is about 65% less survivable than a being shot by a hand gun.  The AR-15 fires it's bullets at just about triple the velocity of a handgun...and it's bullets typically have less mass (though more surface area on impact) than a handgun.  Even MOST hunting rifles use a higher caliber bullet, specifically because they lead to a more humane (and easier 1 shot) kill.

Also, keep in mind, there's nothing inherently wrong with "semi-automatic" on it's own, for hunting (I prefer a bolt action, but....). Especially if you're hunting bigger game or predators (I carry a shot gun when in woods I don't know well, because we have bear up here).  But "semi-automatic" does not translate into "assault" by itself.

I just wanted to respond to what I bolded above.  My wife's cousin is a member of the NYPD and a member of the SWAT team.  He has told us on multiple occasions that the new crime statistics are bogus.  In order to paint a positive light on De Blasio's removal of stop and frisk he instructed the NYPD to reclassify certain crimes and refrain from reporting others, such as certain types of domestic disputes.  Because of that we have now seen the decline in 'violent crime' being reported. 

A second big reason that people are not mentioning is the extreme hyper-gentrification being seen in NYC.  More luxury housing and more wealth will lead to a decline in the rate of violent crime.  I live here and the new residential construction in NYC is out of control.  De Blasio ran on "the tale of two cities" and that wealth gap is only increasing.  Violent crime inevitably goes down with more wealthy residents moving in and more lower class/poor moving out. 

Sorry, i will take statistics vs anecdotal reports every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. I am actively involved in injury prevention activities, specifically around gsw violence,  in state and nationally. I am literally published on the topic, along with several co-authors. I talk to nyc law enforcement leadership monthly, as we are partner cities in a number of research projects on this front. Nobody has ever mentioned this, ever. I somehow think, given how openly we share information, this topic would have come up. Do you have anything more concrete to share to bolster this claim?

In addition, its not just "violent crime", its gun related crime and gsw injuries that have dropped. I am not sure how you could "bury" those? And those drops mirror, very closely, the drops in overall violent crime. This seems like it would take a conspiracy of epic proportions to pull off, quite frankly. Every beat cop and hospital would have to be "in" on it. If this happened, I'm shocked nobody has blown the whistle! It would be huge hews.

The gentrification post dated (check the stats) the crime statistics going down. It started back in the 90s, and has steadily declined.  You can't effectively "gentrify" crime out of a city...or every city would do it. You have to reduce violent crime first to make those properties appealing. Witness the transformation of times square. Of harlem. Of hells kitchen. Of huge chunks of the bronx. Theres volumes of research and literature on this. And i agree, the construction and repurposing in nyc is at a level approaching crazy. In the 30+ years I've been in and out of the city, the changes since the 90s have been remarkable.

As an aside...if you think the gentrification is reducing crime, where is that crime going? Surrounding burroughs, jersey maryland, even most of ct are all seeing reductions in violent crime. Are they all moving to Chicago?  Even Long Island, with some  of the gang related atrocities by ms-13, arent seeing appreciable rises in violent crime.  In fact, they too saw a drop in 2016 (about 6%). Gentrification as a reason would mean that crime would have to move somewhere......and I dant find evidence of like increases anywhere in the area. Can you?

[WAR41]

So violent crime is way down, but hate crimes are way up??  Come on buddy, you don't think there are politics at work here?  I guess everyone who is moving into NYC is a horrible neo-Nazi?  I am curious to know who you're interviewing on a monthly basis from the NYPD.  Personally I would question what they tell you.  Check the links below.  I'm not the only one doubting these statistics. 

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2017/02/so-far-rate-of-hate-crimes-in-2017-outpacing-2016-109621
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Anti-Semitic-Hate-Crimes-Shoot-up-94-Percent-Since-February-2016-NYPD-Says-415122973.html
https://nypost.com/2016/11/28/residents-dont-believe-nypds-lower-crime-statistics/

I'm going on Year 10 living on the Lower East Side at the end of April.  Since De Blasio took office I have seen the homelessness problem skyrocket.  Homeless pissing and shitting on the street that weren't there before.  People taking drugs in the street (not just smoking weed).  In the last 3 weeks alone there have been 3 slashings within a 0.5 mile radius of my building, with one happening 2 blocks away. Cars are being broken into on our block when they weren't previously.  You want to interview some people for your next report?  Come down here and ask my neighbors about how crime has been over the last few years. There is a huge distrust of these statistics and we're talking about a very liberal very blue area. 

As for the gentrification and where the crime is going I think you're looking too close.  New York is #1 in losing residents to other states.  The Empire Center doesn't track where people are moving to and without knowing that you can't assume they are staying close:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-y-no-1-losing-residents-move-states-article-1.3712413

I can't promise you 'huge news', but do some digging.  My wife's cousin has no reason to lie about this.  The guy is in a police union and he votes Democrat.  In his words "its all bullshit". 

[chineseblues]

My uncles 4th cousin 8 times removed says your wife's cousin is full of shit. See how that works?

[tim_m]

Here's the kicker. An assault weapons ban is not going to reduce your run of the mill gun violence.  Most gun violence is perpetrated by hand guns (specifically 9mm hand guns).

What it probably will do (and I base this on the results of the '94 AW ban) is reduce MCI (mass casualty incidents) and decrease the severity of the incidents that do occur.  In recent memory, many (most?) MCI's involve an assault rifle.  It would also give law enforcement yet another tool to arrest "bad guys", and to get more guns used in crimes off the streets and into the rubbish pile.

Yep a quick google search will reveal that 5 of the most recent and deadly shootings have had a semiautomatic used.

[pilferk]

So violent crime is way down, but hate crimes are way up??  Come on buddy, you don't think there are politics at work here?  I guess everyone who is moving into NYC is a horrible neo-Nazi?  I am curious to know who you're interviewing on a monthly basis from the NYPD.  Personally I would question what they tell you.  Check the links below.  I'm not the only one doubting these statistics. 

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2017/02/so-far-rate-of-hate-crimes-in-2017-outpacing-2016-109621
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Anti-Semitic-Hate-Crimes-Shoot-up-94-Percent-Since-February-2016-NYPD-Says-415122973.html
https://nypost.com/2016/11/28/residents-dont-believe-nypds-lower-crime-statistics/

Given the political climate and rabble rousing? Yeah, sounds right. Tracks well with what I've heard from the people I talk to on a regular basis, too.  And, incidentally, it correlates to rises in hate crime in OTHER urban centers, too.  So...yeah....I think politics is involved, but probably not in the way you're insinuating.

I'd also like to add that those hate crime increases, while impressive % wise, constitute somewhere around 20 to 30 actual cases. Total.  To be clear: Not INCREASED by 20 to 30 cases.  The total NUMBER of cases, with the increase included, is 20 to 30 cases.

SURELY you're not suggesting a drop of HUNDREDS of violent crimes, year over year, is somehow rolled into an increase of about 14 total hate crime cases......Or that those 14 or so "extra" cases, whether "reclassified" or not amounts to a drop in the bucket of the overall violent crime in NYC (somewhere around 50k violent crimes per year)? 

And, I mean, we can't totally ignore that PROPERTY crime (so, you know, the only other "bucket" crimes could be reclassified as) have also steadily declined in NYC, too, which sort of makes your assertion a little wobbly right off the bat. 

So, again, those articles aren't "evidence" of anything.  Especially if you actually read them.

Do you have any actual facts to support your anecdote? Because the above are certainly not facts to support it (or, even, really make you question them..they're pretty much what I would expect and have anecdotally heard feedback on).

OK, then, as with all things....let stick to what we know, shall we?

I'm not playing the "alternate facts" game.  We have statistics...one's specific to gun violence and not just "violent crime".  We have clinical data from NYC hospitals (via the National Trauma Databank) showing a reduction in TREATED GSWs that's right in line with (literally almost down to the tenth of a percent) the reduction in gun related crime.  We have volumes and volumes of information over 10 years showing a steady decline in gun violence.  You're offering.....a single officers 2nd hand anecdote, two articles on hate crime, and an article that says people don't trust their government....from the NY post (a conservative tabloid).

Present compelling evidence those statistics are wrong, and not anecdotes and unrelated material, and we can discuss them.  If not, again, I'll take the statistics.

FYI: I don't "interview" anyone.  I'm not a member of the press. We are an academic research consortium specifically looking at gun violence.  But we do have monthly meetings, and I talk to NYPD leadership every single month (OK, I missed November's meeting in 2017...we were on vacation).  And we're specifically discussing stuff like this (statistics, influence on them, etc).  We've all been working together for a LONG time.  We share a LOT of information.  I will reiterate: Nobody has ever, ever...not one time...mentioned anything like this.  Not in the room. Not over beers at a conference we're presenting at. Not ever.

AND, I have no reason to question them. Certainly not based on a 2nd hand account of a nameless, faceless person's wife's cousin.  The people I know, and have worked with for more than 5 years (OK, there's been SOME turnover, but generally) have statistics and data to corroborate what they're saying.  They have evidence to go along with their anecdotes.  We have verifiable medical data from every Trauma Center in the NYC to tie out to what they're saying.  We have federal consumer protection data to tie out to what they're saying.  We have police call logs, legal prosecution proceedings, booking data, DMV data, and a TON of other corroborating data which all ties together. We publish peer reviewed Medical Journal/Professional Journal articles based on this data (and similar data from sister cities like New Haven). Much of this data is publicly available, either singularly or presented in various studies on the topic or in the amalgamation of the published statistics, and YOU, along with everyone else, can easily find it, and see it.

Which,to sum up, is why we use statistics and data.

I'm going on Year 10 living on the Lower East Side at the end of April.  Since De Blasio took office I have seen the homelessness problem skyrocket.  Homeless pissing and shitting on the street that weren't there before.  People taking drugs in the street (not just smoking weed).  In the last 3 weeks alone there have been 3 slashings within a 0.5 mile radius of my building, with one happening 2 blocks away. Cars are being broken into on our block when they weren't previously.  You want to interview some people for your next report?  Come down here and ask my neighbors about how crime has been over the last few years. There is a huge distrust of these statistics and we're talking about a very liberal very blue area. 

Of course. Because you see the localized single incidents rather than the sum total. That's the way the human brain works and why we use statistics, rather than anecdotal observations, to support decision making.

I mean, the article EVEN SAYS THIS:

?People see that cars are getting broken into on their blocks and see that that there?s still massive gang activity,? the source said. ?A lot of this is anecdotal evidence, but if the person on the street doesn?t feel safe, that?s their reality, and that?s the statistic that counts.?

The article also mentions that there might be a union driven component (the PBA)  to the sentiment that the crime stats are "bogus".

We had 2 cars stolen in our neighborhood over a 2 month span.  We all ran out, got cameras installed on our houses, showed up at the police barracks en masse, and generally went a little overboard.

Then, it was explained to us that....over the course of the last 5 years, precisely 4 cars get stolen in town pretty much every year.  In 2017, there were 2 in rapid succession, but.....statistically,  that brought our total to 4 for the year.

There were no more cars stolen in town last year.  Our total was 4.

There have been no more cars stolen in our neighborhood.  It's been about 6 months.

Human Observation/reaction vs statistics

As for the gentrification and where the crime is going I think you're looking too close.  New York is #1 in losing residents to other states.  The Empire Center doesn't track where people are moving to and without knowing that you can't assume they are staying close:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-y-no-1-losing-residents-move-states-article-1.3712413

I can't promise you 'huge news', but do some digging.  My wife's cousin has no reason to lie about this.  The guy is in a police union and he votes Democrat.  In his words "its all bullshit". 

So, your assertion is that all the "bad people" are moving (en masse...given the drops), but in small enough groups so as not to effect any single nearby population center enough to blip the radar, or far enough away that it would not effect surrounding communities?  Then where, pray tell, are they going?  And I suspect your answer will be "I don't know...somewhere" which just proves my point.

You realize how convoluted your theory sounds, right?  And how statistically impossible it would be given the population in question, the significance of the statistical drop, and the average population densities we're talking about (NYC compared to everywhere else except maybe LA)?  They almost literally would have had to move to Chicago. Every single one of them.  You've presented the exact OPPOSITE of Occum's razor.....the most complicated theory possible to explain something away.

Also, there have been many, many studies on this.  Gentrification, no matter what the press tells you (or what you assume to be true) does not decrease crime on it's own.  Gentrification actually WORKS when you reduce crime first, and then gentrify.  Or, as I said, every city would just gentrify it's way out of crime. Here's a few of those studies.  There's a dozen or so more of them, at least.

https://sites.duke.edu/urbaneconomics/?p=1092
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=125395
http://furmancenter.org/research/publication/has-falling-crime-invited-gentrification

I'm not saying he's lying. He could have misunderstood.  He could have heard a rumor. He could be a PBA member (who are trying to convince the city to hire more cops....surprise, surprise...they have an agenda!). There's many, many other options here. Being a LEO also doesn't preclude you from just being wrong.

But no matter what the correct option is, I'm saying you have no actual proof he's right. So.......why should anyone believe you, or him, vs the published statistics?

You can choose to believe whatever you want. But you have to understand....most people are going to choose the statistics, and with good reason.

[pilferk]

My uncles 4th cousin 8 times removed says your wife's cousin is full of shit. See how that works?

Exactly this.  Nobody wins a war of anecdotes.  That's precisely why we have statistics and data.

What gets me is, this is exactly the breakdown of discourse.  Rather than everyone accepting that there are certain things that are facts.....everyone wants to be entitled to their own set of facts, or will just discount the facts that they feel infringes on their world/political/anecdotal point of view.

I used the stolen car example in my recent response. But I have another....its sorta work related, but it works.

We closely track patient intubations in the ED.  They tend to be "sicker" (high acuity) patients, with higher resource utilization, and it's ONE of the many metrics we report out so the ED can make adjustments in staffing, etc.

About twice a year, I'll get an email from a fellow or ED MD saying something like "We're seeing a HUGE spike in ED intubations.  I must have intubated every other patient my last couple nights on duty. Can you get me a report showing the huge spike in volume so we can ask for more resources?"

And I run out the data. Low and behold, no spike in intubated patients. Maybe there is a spike in overall patient volume OR there's a spike on a particular night (or nights) OR this doc just intubated the majority of the patients requiring tubes those nights they were on but the weekly, or monthly, numbers are pretty much right in variance with every other week, or every other month.

Conversely, when we HAVE seen spikes....nobody noticed.  Because the volume was very evenly spread out over MDs and over days.  No drastic increase, but an extra patient or two every shift.

This is why I trust statistics more than I trust "on the ground observers".   My entire professional life (almost 20 years worth) has trained me to do exactly that.

I also have to admit, when reading the initial response, my brain went right to Spaceballs.

I am your father?s brother?s nephew?s cousin?s former roommate.

[chineseblues]

I also have to admit, when reading the initial response, my brain went right to Spaceballs.

I am your father?s brother?s nephew?s cousin?s former roommate.

It honestly drives me nuts when they refuse established facts and go on about making shit up. The same people do it every time anything is brought up that goes against their narrative. This whole "fake news" bullshit has got them brainwashed.

I'm from canada so most of the shit going on down there don't really effect me but as an outsider looking in I find it remarkable that there are so many god damn idiots in the states. I honestly don't get it, but I guess brainwashing really does work wonders.

P.s. Gotta love Spaceballs!

[pilferk]

I also have to admit, when reading the initial response, my brain went right to Spaceballs.

I am your father?s brother?s nephew?s cousin?s former roommate.

It honestly drives me nuts when they refuse established facts and go on about making shit up. The same people do it every time anything is brought up that goes against their narrative. This whole "fake news" bullshit has got them brainwashed.

I'm from canada so most of the shit going on down there don't really effect me but as an outsider looking in I find it remarkable that there are so many god damn idiots in the states. I honestly don't get it, but I guess brainwashing really does work wonders.

P.s. Gotta love Spaceballs!

Yeah, I ducked out for awhile (and probably will again, shortly..though at least this time it's not with the flu making me loopy...since school and work should spin up again shortly), precisely because its a lot of rah rah dittoheading (which is chuckle worthy to read, but useless when it comes to discussion).

It's also why, if you notice, I didn't actually REPLY to someone to argue a point or question an opinion. I just provided some context to Jaeball. 

It's really not worth "debating" when it becomes a discussion about what's established fact, and what's not.

[WAR41]

I also have to admit, when reading the initial response, my brain went right to Spaceballs.

I am your father?s brother?s nephew?s cousin?s former roommate.

It honestly drives me nuts when they refuse established facts and go on about making shit up. The same people do it every time anything is brought up that goes against their narrative. This whole "fake news" bullshit has got them brainwashed.

I'm from canada so most of the shit going on down there don't really effect me but as an outsider looking in I find it remarkable that there are so many god damn idiots in the states. I honestly don't get it, but I guess brainwashing really does work wonders.

P.s. Gotta love Spaceballs!

No narrative buddy.  Don't care if you believe me or not, but I am not the only one in NYC right now who feels this way.  No brainwashing either.  I hope pilferk asks the NYPD (if he hasn't already) if their methodology has changed for any crime reporting in NYC since De Blasio took over. 

Bill De Blasio is straight up one of the most corrupt mayors NYC has ever seen and that is saying something.  People are right to be skeptical of everything he touts.

@Pilferk honest question.  De Blasio has initiated this 'Vision Zero' campaign to reduce pedestrian deaths caused by vehicles.  Can you check and see if there has been an increase in drivers who have hit/killed pedestrians who haven't been charged due to 'medical issues' than before Vision Zero?

Also for fun reading go check the history of the Rivington House and how BDB's administration handed over the deed to developers to build luxury condos.  No one was punished, no one was held responsible.  Everything this guy does is done with an eye towards a presidential run. 

[pilferk]

I hope pilferk asks the NYPD (if he hasn't already) if their methodology has changed for any crime reporting in NYC since De Blasio took over. 

Again, I don't need to ask.  These are part of ongoing discussions to frame our data.

Their methodology statements have not changed, radically, since the inception of our project.

All that has to be documented as part of the publication of any peer reviewed literature.

And property crime has also decreased. (Property crime + violent crime = total crime)

So...whats your suggestion, here?  That they are purposefully NOT reporting crimes as crime, at all?  Again, this is where we get to "conspiracy theory of epic proportions that would require the involvement of every beat cop, every prosecutor, and every cog in the justice arm of both NYC and the state of NY to pull off".  AND you'd have to get all the corroborating data sources to match up to that conspiracy theory, even when they're from external sources.

Again, if you could PROVE that, it would be huge news.  But I've not seen any suggestion of that, by any one of repute.  And honestly, I feel like discussion of this, without some sort of corroborating evidence, would require donning a tin foil hat that I'm not willing to put on.

Bill De Blasio is straight up one of the most corrupt mayors NYC has ever seen and that is saying something.  People are right to be skeptical of everything he touts.

Every new york mayor since Ed Koch has had similar accusations thrown at them by various sections of the NYC populace.  Nobody in NYC likes the mayor of New York.  Even Rudy wore out his welcome.

@Pilferk honest question.  De Blasio has initiated this 'Vision Zero' campaign to reduce pedestrian deaths caused by vehicles.  Can you check and see if there has been an increase in drivers who have hit/killed pedestrians who haven't been charged due to 'medical issues' than before Vision Zero?

I can't access their criminal database directly on anything other than Gun Violence. So I can't pull that piece, and our IRB doesn't cover access anyway. I'm not looking to go to jail over an internet discussion.....and I don't see any public statistics on this front.

There has been a marked decrease in pedestrian struck treated at Designated Trauma Centers in NYC  over the past 4 or 5 years (2013 - 2017). There have also been fewer fatalities, each year, too. The mortality % is roughly similar across those years (so, if you are hit, your likelihood of dying due to being hit is the close to the same...its about 5%). But the overall number of pedestrians struck by a motor vehicle, overall, has dropped.  That's, again, a trend in many urban centers involved in community outreach/pedestrian friendly programs (we have our own, that's similar to the "Vision Zero" campaign) to combat pedestrian accidents. 

I will also add that, as a percentage of total MVCs (Motor Vehicle Crashes), the Pedestrian struck injuries looks like it's a rapidly declining cohort of the total traffic accidents over the past 4 to 5 years, too.

All general statistics courtesy of the National Trauma Database and yours truly.

There's an article out there on this somewhere.  I suspect they are not using criminal stats in this, but the NTDB generated ones.  I suspect this because they are very close, where they provide actual counts, to what I get when I run the numbers out of the research set.  It's also possible they're using the National Highway Safety numbers, which usually correlate pretty closely. Or it could just be that most pedestrians struck end up being treated in a hospital, rather than walking away.

http://www1.nyc.gov/site/visionzero/index.page
http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/016-18/vision-zero-mayor-de-blasio-pedestrian-fatalities-dropped-32-last-year-making-2017#/0

Also for fun reading go check the history of the Rivington House and how BDB's administration handed over the deed to developers to build luxury condos.  No one was punished, no one was held responsible.  Everything this guy does is done with an eye towards a presidential run. 

Since I have zero interest in NYC's political scene, I'll pass.

But I have to tell you, I find this discussion supremely ironic for so many reasons.

[tim_m]

I also have to admit, when reading the initial response, my brain went right to Spaceballs.

I am your father?s brother?s nephew?s cousin?s former roommate.

It honestly drives me nuts when they refuse established facts and go on about making shit up. The same people do it every time anything is brought up that goes against their narrative. This whole "fake news" bullshit has got them brainwashed.

I'm from canada so most of the shit going on down there don't really effect me but as an outsider looking in I find it remarkable that there are so many god damn idiots in the states. I honestly don't get it, but I guess brainwashing really does work wonders.

P.s. Gotta love Spaceballs!

Yep, for instance i was having a heated discussion on facebook with a friend who refuses to believe AR-15 and similar semiautomatic weapons are a real problem. She tried to justify this by saying only 2 school shootings have had a semiautomatic. However if you do a quick bit of research you'd see 6 of the most recent mass shootings regardless of locale all had on thing in common semiautomatics. they are also 6 of the 10 most deadliest shootings ever.

[sandman]

Trump is savage! Continues to get shit done. Even MSNBC is praising him.

I remember when everyone was saying trump would get us into a nuclear war.

SoKo security adviser Chung Eui-Yong: "I explained to @POTUS that his leadership and his maximum pressure policy together with international solidarity brought us to this juncture."

Great praise there from foreign leadership.

If NK follows through, that would be a HUGE win for trump.