Friday, September 21, 2007

CCTV not solving crimes in the UK...

To the tune of over £200million and millions more on the way as they are being re-enforced to resist vandalism.

Tens of thousands of CCTV cameras, yet 80% of crime unsolved

"There are now 10,524 CCTV cameras in 32 London boroughs funded with Home Office grants totalling about £200million.

• Hackney has the most cameras - 1,484 - and has a better-than-average clearup rate of 22.2 per cent.

• Wandsworth has 993 cameras, Tower Hamlets, 824, Greenwich, 747 and Lewisham 730, but police in all four boroughs fail to reach the average 21 per cent crime clear-up rate for London.

• By contrast, boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, Sutton and Waltham Forest have fewer than 100 cameras each yet they still have clear-up rates of around 20 per cent. "

Shock I say. Shock.

How many candidates are begging the Brady Bunch/VPC for support?

Just asking.

Roundup on candidate speeches at NRA conference

Edit: Hi Jade!

Confirmation 3: Revenge of the Stats

A reply from the UN research office:

Dear Mr. Thirdpower,

The UN and Interpol collect data based on different defitions, which are both correct but do not match, thus the two series are not comparable.
Furthermore, since every country collects crime statistics based on
domestic legislation, some countries find it easier to adjust their figures to the UN definition and some to the Interpol. In some cases, countries do not adjust figures and may provide the same statistics to both data collection series.

In order to improve comparability, the Tenth UN Survey of Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems
( is collecting detailed information on national definitions, statistical recording and crime subcategories. Results will be available mid-2008

For your convenience, here are the two definitions:


"Murder": Any act performed with the purpose of taking human life, in whatever circumstance. This definition excludes abortion but includes infanticide.

Interpol further instructs: Attempted offences are to be included in the number of offences known to the police; in addition, the number of attempted offences should be expressed in the column labelled "Attempts (%)" as a percentage of the total number of offences.


“Intentional homicide” may be understood to mean death deliberately
inflicted on a person by another person, including infanticide

Two separate figures should be provided for "completed" and "attempted"

Best regards

Thursday, September 20, 2007

An answer to the crime numbers. Sort of.

Well, I recieved a reply from "Statistics Canada" on the data. Here's what they had to say:

Good afternoon,

As you have discovered first hand, making international comparisons can be difficult.

My understanding of the INTERPOL table is that for infraction 1. Murder, the column "Number of cases known to the police" includes attempted homicides, while the attempts column shows the % which are attempted (ie. attempted homicides, theft, etc.).

In the case of Switzerland in 2002, there were a total of 213 homicides (including attempts). Of which, 59.6% (or 127) are attempts. In the UN report sorted by country, we find Switzerland's table on page 341 of 373. Line 2.3 of the UN report shows a matching figure for attempted homicides (127).

For our part, Statistics Canada does not include attempted homicides in the overall homicide rate. As a result when we calculated the homicide rates we removed the 127 homicides before calculating the rate.

So my understanding is that the UN report, INTERPOL and Statistics Canada are in fact all correct, just that the numbers are presented differently. Hopefully this is the case with the other numbers you were concerned with as well.

Should you require further conformation I suggest you contact the Swiss Federal Statistical Office directly. Their website address, along with many other statistical offices may be accessed from the "External links" page, which you may access off our home page by using the link at the bottom left.

As an aside, I would recommend to you that you continue to do research on what comprises a homicide in each country. There are countries, which include attempted homicides in the aggregate homicide rate, while others include vehicular homicides, and/or abortions.

Good luck

Statistics Canada | 100 Tunney's Pasture Driveway Ottawa K1A 0T6
Statistique Canada | 100, promenade du Pré Tunney Ottawa K1A 0T6
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

So basically, when the Swiss reported the numbers to the UN, they included both attempted and successful homicides under the "Completed" category w/ a separate listing for the attempted as a percentage of that number. The UN then reported the total number as "Completed" along w/ a separate catagory for "Attempted" as additional criminal activity thereby inflating the numbers.

Completed. Complete. Yeah, I could see where that could have some translation issues.

So the Swiss numbers were/are not actually 2.5+ but in the low ones.

The continued problem? As was stated here by the CDOJ and by INTERPOL, none of it is consistent across the nations. So much for Hemenways' international correlations and implied causality. But I'm sure he "controlled" for that as well.

Another 'Correlation'...

Here's the list of Senators who voted against the condemnation of MoveOn's attack ads:

NAYs ---25
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Look familiar? Now which organization has politicians "bought and paid for" again? I will admit, there's one name I'm really surprised isn't on that list.

INTERPOL would support Tiahrt..

In an e-mail I recieved from them regarding the Swiss homicide discrepancy:

Thank you for your email.

In response to your enquiry, INTERPOL's International Crime Statistics are no longer being made available to the public.

The decision to remove the statistics was taken as some users and some members of the media were making comparisons between countries based on these statistics, when different collection methods make such comparisons problematic.

For official statistics relating to a specific country, we would advise you to contact them directly. The UNODC also provides international statistics.

Press Office

So people were misusing the data so INTERPOL yanked it. Boy, that sounds familiar.

(yes, that goes for our side to)

Why don't they endorse Phrenology along w/ it?

Along w/ Cam Edwards list of Joyce Financing of the report and the link to actual report on David Hardy's , I just can't help to think that the gun banners realize that they're in desperate straights but are completely out of touch.
Really. The fawning support of Ballistic Fingerprinting years after even the most stringent Anti states have dropped the idea shows that these bought and paid for "chiefs" have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and are only parroting whatever the Joyce's tell them. Kind of like Gonzo.

Besides the minor media coverage this will get that we'll have to listen to PuSH'ers repeat over and over, the one I'm sure the Brady's et al will jump all over will be BATFE Acting Director Sullivan's attendance at the conference. Even though he's on record for supporting the Tiahrt Amendment, it goes without saying that they'll claim he endorses the report. They do have a history of that. And, once again, we have it on record that the Brady Bunch supports gun bans as "reasonable" no matter how many times they say they're "not for banning guns":

"The police chiefs have set out a strong, reasonable, agenda for action," Helmke continued. "

It puts the onus of crime on the the citizen and not the criminal. Don't believe me?
"Elected officials should mandate safe storage of guns and impose criminal penalties when individuals fail to comply and when improperly stored guns are criminally misused or result in accidental death or injury."

So in other words, if you're victimized by having your house robbed, you will be further victimized by the authorities if they feel you didn't store your firearms properly in your own home.

That's "reasonable", isn't it? Crime is your fault. Not the criminals who commit the crimes. No more 4th Amendment for you.

The Chiefs/Joyce's also show they haven't kept up with SCOTUS decisions on "protective orders":

"State, local and tribal laws should be enacted to authorize law enforcement officers to remove all guns and ammunition from the scene of a domestic violence incident and at the time a domestic violence protective order is served."

Even though the police have no obligation to enforce a RO/PO even when law requires it.

Are there sections in there about better training of police officers? Sure, but they're written so as to sound secondary to the numerous gun bans they call for as well as providing an out if the agencies don't comply. How does it do this? It doesn't say anything about the agencies wasting the current funds they have on interior decorating, but asks for even more to "properly train" the police. So when the various legislatures don't provide that funding, it can all be blamed on the "undue influence" of the "gun lobby". So in reality, no-one's ( including the police or legislatures) going to pay any attention to those parts. They were put in there to make the report sound a little respectable and less biased.

I actually like it when they come out with these reports. It neatly lists how organizations like these are less in the business of "crime control" than they are interested in banning guns. Were the Brady's Blog still accepting comments, there would already be a hundred posts skewering the report w/ one or two by Kelli and Macca worshipping at the altar. So we should do what we do best:
1.Fisk the living hell out of it.
2.Make sure we provide the resources to eachother.
3.Keep an eye out for articles and blogs supporting it.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

CYOA is justification for discrimination...

So says Santa Maria City Police Chief Danny Macagni. I did not know this, but apparently "May Issue" in California places liability onto the city if someone misuses the permit. That's ironic in the fact that they don't have liability towards the safety of anyone else. So, even though the Chief claims he's a "Strong Supporter" of the 2A, he's got to cover his and the city's ass by effectively only issuing permits to his friends:

“Frankly, the people I have issued (permits) to are well-known,” Macagni said, adding they are people he has known for years and “I feel comfortable that they won't go out and get themselves in trouble."

or in the case of Santa Barbara County, only to LEO's and Judges. That, however, is a step up from Lompoc county w/ zero.

Silly me, I thought Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional.

Robyn's allowing comments again?

The Next PSH BuzzPhrase?

"assault-caliber handgun,"

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Being that "assault weapons" come in everything from .22 to .577 "Tyrannasour". Or is it one of the more common rounds like 5.56 , 7.62, 9mm, .45?

My guess is that it was probably a 9mm and the term "assault" has become so ingrained into the minds of the willfully ignorant that none of them could actually define what it means.

And of course the perp has a record.

Tip to KimduToit

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

I'm so glad I live in the US...

Zim slaps luxury tax on panties

Harare - Love women in hot panties or tight sexy jeans? If so, Zimbabwe is not your ideal place.

This is because hot panties could now be a thing of the past in Zimbabwe after the foreign currency starved Zimbabwean government added underwear and lingerie to the list of luxury items now attracting a foreign currency duty...

But remember folks, the economic and criminal problems have nothing to do w/ a corrupt, psuedo-communist regime that's dismantled pretty much the entire infrastructure.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Final Wheel of Time book going to be a bit late...

Author Robert Jordan dies

While mourning the passing of an excellent writer, I'm also hoping he left enough notes so his masterpiece can be completed. Nothing yet on the Tor site and the "dragonmount" blog seems to be down.

It was already on it's third book when I was introduced to the series in High School.

Hemenway Responds to CH

The report that Kecibukia discusses is a brief synopsis of my book,
Private Guns Public Health, University of Michigan 2006, which goes into more depth and answers some of the questions. The book in turn is a synopsis of hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles, which go into far more detail. Our website (HICRC) summarizes most of our journal articles about guns-- from Google scholar you can find the abstracts, and if you have access to the journals via the internet (as Harvard provides) you can download any of the gun articles.

Translation: So buy my book or pay for the articles yourself. Do your own research.

Now compare that to Gary Mauser who sent me his data.

Kecibukia is correct that the under age 24 no longer account for the majority of accidental gun fatalities. The sentence in the book was correct when I originally wrote it (probably in 2000 or 2001 when data were available for the 1990s up to 1998) but the sentence should have the dates specified, or a citation.

At least he admits to not being current. Too bad it wasn't true in '98 either and hadn't been for at least three years.

Here's an interesting bit from their response to an NRA critique of their book:

(2) The editorial staff writes: “Hemenway, Miller and Azrael (sic) believed that their study proved that Right-to-Carry laws caused people to behave dangerously and thus directly led to people shooting or threatening others with a gun.”
Response: We say nothing along those lines. No variable in our analysis has anything to do with Right-to-Carry Laws, or shooting people or threatening anyone with a gun.


"Nonetheless, in the past decade, many states
have required police to issue gun-carrying permits to anyone who is not expressly
prohibited by statute, even if police have reason to believe that individual may misuse
the firearm.

"While evidence regarding the effects of these more permissive gun-carrying policies is
not conclusive, the best scientific studies suggest that they may increase rather
than reduce crime overall"

So they call studies that support that hypothesis the "best" and cite them, but they're not really saying it. Sure. OK.

And my continued all time favorite:

We controlled for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation.

Translation: We tweaked the numbers to make them say whatever we wanted them to. "Resource deprivation"? Whatever. "Urbanization"? I bet they 'adjusted' all the rural crime numbers up. For example, Chicago is the most urban area in Illinois, accounts for 50% of violent crime, has only 1/4 the total population of the state, and practically no legal ownership.