Chislett Street double murder (Oakland, Penn: move, area, place)

[gg]

Originally Posted by charisb

Urban sprawl likely has nothing to do with this. It appears the woman let someone in her house voluntarily, and she was someone who assumed the best about people. This could happen anywhere, regardless of the neighborhood.
I really dislike the 'blame the victim' mentality that often seems to occur when crime victims live in a neighborhood that isn't Sewickly or Fox Chapel.
And it seems dangerous to decide who the killer was and post information about him without concrete evidence. Does anyone remember Richard Jewell?

Yeah sure, whatever you say. Not blaming the victim either, I am just pointing out in bad areas there is a lot of crime and one heck of a lot of people with guns. It is what it is in a lot of the city proper. That is why there is urban sprawl. Kind of obvious really and not worth the discussion.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Yeah sure, whatever you say. Not blaming the victim either, I am just pointing out in bad areas there is a lot of crime and one heck of a lot of people with guns. It is what it is in a lot of the city proper. That is why there is urban sprawl. Kind of obvious really and not worth the discussion.

I'm sure most of your neighbors have guns, Curtis. We do. Most of our neighbors do too. If anything, the city is filled with more liberals who are less likely to own guns. Out in the suburbs, you have many conservatives who own many guns. Gun ownership is higher in the suburbs than in large cities. The fact is states with higher gun ownership have lower violent crime rates. Suicides by firearms are higher in suburban areas.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Hopes

I'm sure most of your neighbors have guns, Curtis. We do. Most of our neighbors do too. If anything, the city is filled with more liberals who are less likely to own guns. Out in the suburbs, you have many conservatives who own many guns. Gun ownership is higher in the suburbs than in large cities. The fact is states with higher gun ownership have lower violent crime rates. Suicides by firearms are higher in suburban areas.

The number of legally registered firearms are definitely higher in suburban areas, the total number of guns in each area is necessarily not completely known. Although there may be polls on the issue, who is going to admit to some character taking a poll that they have an illegal weapon.

[gg]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

The number of legally registered firearms are definitely higher in suburban areas, the total number of guns in each area is necessarily not completely known. Although there may be polls on the issue, who is going to admit to some character taking a poll that they have an illegal weapon.

Hey, you beat me to my response and of course you are correct.

[charisb]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

The number of legally registered firearms are definitely higher in suburban areas, the total number of guns in each area is necessarily not completely known. Although there may be polls on the issue, who is going to admit to some character taking a poll that they have an illegal weapon.

And only illegal guns can be used to kill people. And everyone who lives in the suburbs is mentally stable and law abiding. What am I waiting for--if I stay in the city I deserve something bad to happen to me, and it's only a matter of time!

[macharoni]

Yes, the suburban areas are immune to gun violence!

[gg]

Originally Posted by macharoni

Yes, the suburban areas are immune to gun violence!

Obviously no one is "immune", but there are things called statistics. There are shootings all the time in the city. Of course you can pull out a couple of suburbs in your argument that are also full of gunfire.

Regardless of all this, this murder is horrible and I am sad to see that it isn't solved. The longer it goes unsolved, the less chance they will catch the guy. Scary and I feel for those living around that area in the city. I am sure it is pretty unsettling.

[macharoni]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Obviously no one is "immune", but there are things called statistics. There are shootings all the time in the city. Of course you can pull out a couple of suburbs in your argument that are also full of gunfire.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that large urban areas have the highest rates of murders by gun.
But it can also be argued that the majority of mass killings occur outside of the urban area. And also the majority of these same mass killers got their guns legally.

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Regardless of all this, this murder is horrible and I am sad to see that it isn't solved.

That's what this thread is about -and I agree!

[wyoh]

Originally Posted by Hopes

The fact is states with higher gun ownership have lower violent crime rates.

This thread is derailed for sure but that "datamash" shouldn't be read as evidence of anything. In fact the data behind it actually shows the opposite, that states with low gun ownership have less violent crime.

Look at the table instead of the map, then go down the list looking for violent crime rates that seem lower than the others. Then look across to gun ownership. The map is an awesome example of someone creating their own math to create "evidence".

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by wyoh

This thread is derailed for sure but that "datamash" shouldn't be read as evidence of anything. In fact the data behind it actually shows the opposite, that states with low gun ownership have less violent crime.

Look at the table instead of the map, then go down the list looking for violent crime rates that seem lower than the others. Then look across to gun ownership. The map is an awesome example of someone creating their own math to create "evidence".

Yup. Some examples

Massachusetts - Violent crime rate of 431.5. 1% of households have loaded gun.

South Carolina - Violent crime rate of 788.3. 8.9% of households have loaded gun.