This message was self-deleted by its author

[jimmy the one]

52. cherry pickium errorium

alcalix: You're committing a category error. You're looking at ALL gun related violent crime. Which includes robberies, assaults and threats.

Since it's the relative rate year after year compared with total violent crime year after year (or FA related vc), I again do not understand any point you are trying to make. Firearm related violent crime rate will generally affect total violent crime rate.

alcalix: You are not looking at firearm homicides, the percentage of guns homicides over all firearm homicides remained pretty much the same. Thus the proportion of firearms in homicides was not impacted.

Was that a typo, the 2nd 'firearm'? I will read omit 2nd firearm. I said murders were only a small ~3% proportion of all violent crime & thus do not significantly affect violent crime rates.

Upon further scrutiny I checked FA homicide stats, same bjs link above.
Note how the percentage of firearms involved in homicides decreased from 1993 thru 2000, from approx. 71% down to 64%, about a ten percent decline, statistically significant. This is the same time period that household & personal firearm ownership declined 20 -30% accd'g to GSS, gallup, & Pew.
From 2002 thru 2011 the FA% remained fairly level, avg'g about 68%, an avg decline from 1993/4 of about 5%, not that statistically significant except that, if so, one would've expected a fluctuation above the 1993/4 rate, and there wasn't any.

Percent of violence {homicide} involving a firearm, 1993–2011
1993 .. 71.2 %
1994 ...71.4
1995 ...69.0
1996 ...68.0
1997 ...68.0
1998 ...65.9
1999 ...64.1
2000 ...64.4
2001 ...55.9 ... scratch, 9/11 included ~3,000
2002 ...67.1
2003 ...67.2
2004 ...67.0
2005 ...68.2
2006 ...68.9
2007 ...68.8
2008 ...68.3
2009 ...68.4
2010 ...68.1
2011c ..69.6 http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

alcalix: When criminologists measure the impact of firearms on homicide they use the percentage of guns used in overall homicides, not rates.

I used rates (9.2% etc) due to icon's premise that little change in rates from 1993 - 2011 were indicative of his premise, see his earlier posts.
I think your error is the same as icon's, taking the 1993/4 rate & comparing with the 2011 rate & inferring little change so as to say remained at parity, without looking at the intervening years rates. Another latin error for icon 'cherry pickium absurdium'.