"The yearly unintentional loss of life for handgun-related occurrences is somewhat under 200".


42 views
Uploaded on:
Description
Guilty parties Sentenced in U.S. Locale Courts under the U.S. Sentencing Commission rules (monetary year 1999) . bIncludes Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Asians, and Pacific Islanders.. 230 is really couple of sexual misuse cases for the entire nation, isn\'t it?. U.S. Region Courts
Transcripts
Slide 1

"The yearly unplanned loss of life for handgun-related episodes is somewhat under 200" Actual handgun aggregate is 187 + some obscure part of the 804, likely considerably more than 200.

Slide 2

Offenders Sentenced in U.S. Locale Courts under the U.S. Sentencing Commission rules (monetary year 1999) b Includes Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. The clarification: The insights are restricted to elected cases, and the government once in a while prosecutes sexual manhandle (which is for the most part a state law wrongdoing) – with the exception of on Indian reservations. 230 is quite couple of sexual manhandle cases for the entire nation, would it say it isn\'t? U.S. Area Courts – exactly what courts are those?

Slide 3

Find four issues with this realistic, which alludes to the case that held that utilization of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unlawful. 1. Did the court of advances decide that "the Pledge . . . is unconstitu-tional"? 1. Did the court of requests decide that "the Pledge . . . is unconstitu-tional"? It decided that the consideration of "under God" in the Pledge is illegal. The rest of the 25-odd words were untouched. A fastidious point, yet accuracy numbers. 2. The vast majority of who say "Promise" is established? 2. The majority of who say "Vow" is protected? Appears like it ought to mean most perusers, or most Americans — however fine print says " law understudies and lawful partners ." Not what perusers would anticipate. 3. How were the respondents picked? 3. How were the respondents picked? They were self-chosen (valid for most "online survey[s]"), not haphazardly picked. Most likely an exceptionally unrepresentative example even of all "law understudies and legitimate partners." 4. Is the room for mistakes truly ± 3%? 4. Is the room for give and take truly ± 3%? With 235 respondents, the room for give and take is rougly 100 separated by the square base of 235, or ± 6% or somewhere in the vicinity. (Obviously, with a self-chose test the outcome is futile regardless of what number of individuals are reviewed.)

Slide 4

Study: 15% of N.Y. drivers 16-25 drive tanked in any event once every month. Minnesota pundit: 15% of driving-age adolescents drive tanked at any rate once every month. Concentrate on: 15% of N.Y. drivers 16-25 drive tanked at any rate once per month. Minnesota pundit: 15% of driving-age youngsters drive tanked at any rate once per month. 1. Summing up crosswise over spots and times — clarify that the numbers allude to the N.Y. ponder, at the time the study was finished. Think about: 15% of N.Y. drivers 16-25 drive tanked in any event once per month. Minnesota analyst: 15% of driving-age young people drive intoxicated at any rate once every month. 1. Summing up crosswise over spots and times — clarify that the numbers allude to the N.Y. think about, at the time the study was finished. 2. Gathering from gathering\'s conduct to a subset\'s conduct — do adolescent drivers (16-18 or 16-19) carry on an indistinguishable route from 18/19-25-year-olds? Think about: 15% of N.Y. drivers 16-25 drive intoxicated in any event once per month. Minnesota analyst: 15% of driving-age young people drive inebriated at any rate once per month. 1. Summing up crosswise over spots and times — clarify that the numbers allude to the N.Y. consider, at the time the study was finished. 2. Inducing from gathering\'s conduct to a subset\'s conduct — do adolescent drivers (16-18 or 16-19) carry on an indistinguishable path from 18/19-25-year-olds? 3. Distorting the study — the study concentrated on division of drivers who drive tanked, not on part of young people who drive plastered .

Slide 5

[A:] a hand-weapon brought into the home for the pur-stances of self-insurance is six times more inclined to kill a relative or colleague than to repulse a criminal [Article:] a handgun is six times more prone to be utilized to kill a companion or relative than to repulse a thief [Article:] a handgun is six times more inclined to be utilized to kill a companion or relative than to repulse a thief [A:] a hand-firearm brought into the home for the pur-postures of self-security is six times more prone to kill a relative or associate than to repulse a thief [B:] During [1958-73 in Cuyahoga County], just 23 thieves, looters or interlopers who were not relatives or colleagues were killed by firearms in the hands of people who were ensuring their homes. Amid this same interim, six times the same number of lethal gun mischances happened in the home. (i) Small blunder: "companion" is false equivalent word for "associate."

Slide 6

[Article:] a handgun is six times more prone to be utilized to kill a companion or relative than to repulse a thief [B:] During [1958-73 in Cuyahoga County], just 23 criminals, looters or interlopers who were not relatives or colleagues were killed by firearms in the hands of people who were securing their homes. Amid this same interim, six times the same number of lethal gun mishaps happened in the home. [B:] During [1958-73 in Cuyahoga County], just 23 thieves, burglars or interlopers who were not relatives or associates were executed by firearms in the hands of people who were ensuring their homes. Amid this same interim, six times the same number of deadly gun mishaps happened in the home. [Article:] a handgun is six times more inclined to be utilized to kill a companion or relative than to repulse a criminal [Article:] a handgun is six times more prone to be utilized to kill a companion or relative than to repulse a thief [Article:] a handgun is six times more inclined to be utilized to kill a companion or relative than to repulse a thief [Article:] a handgun is six times more inclined to be utilized to kill a companion or relative than to repulse a criminal [Article:] a handgun is six times more prone to be utilized to kill a companion or relative than to repulse a robber [B:] During [1958-73 in Cuyahoga County], just 23 thieves, looters or interlopers who were not relatives or colleagues were killed by firearms in the hands of people who were securing their homes. Amid this same interim, six times the same number of lethal gun mischances happened in the home. [B:] During [1958-73 in Cuyahoga County], just 23 thieves, criminals or gatecrashers who were not relatives or colleagues were murdered by firearms in the hands of people who were securing their homes. Amid this same interim, six times the same number of lethal gun mishaps happened in the home. [B:] During [1958-73 in Cuyahoga County] , just 23 criminals, looters or interlopers who were not relatives or colleagues were slaughtered by firearms in the hands of people who were securing their homes. Amid this same interim, six times the same number of deadly gun mischances happened in the home. [B:] During [1958-73 in Cuyahoga County], just 23 thieves, criminals or interlopers who were not relatives or associates were executed by weapons in the hands of people who were securing their homes. Amid this same interim, six times the same number of deadly gun mishaps happened in the home. (ii) "Handgun" is a false equivalent word for "weapon." (ii) "Handgun" is a false equivalent word for "weapon." (iii) "Kill a companion or relative" isn\'t "lethal gun mishap." (iv) "Repulse" isn\'t "kill." (v) "Criminal" isn\'t "thief, looter or interloper." (vi) Make clear when you\'re deducing from a particular time and place to the entire nation at an alternate time. (ii) "Handgun" is a false equivalent word for "weapon." (iii) "Kill a companion or relative" isn\'t "deadly gun mischance." (iv) "Repulse" isn\'t "kill." (ii) "Handgun" is a false equivalent word for "firearm." (iii) "Kill a companion or relative" isn\'t "lethal gun mishap." (ii) "Handgun" is a false equivalent word for "firearm." (iii) "Kill a companion or relative" isn\'t "lethal gun mishap." (iv) "Repulse" isn\'t "kill." (v) "Criminal" isn\'t "thief, looter or gatecrasher."

Slide 7

[Article:] a handgun is six times more prone to be utilized to kill a companion or relative than to repulse a thief [B:] During [1958-73 in Cuyahoga County] , just 23 thieves, burglars or interlopers who were not relatives or colleagues were killed by firearms in the hands of people who were ensuring their homes. Amid this same interim, six times the same number of deadly gun mischances happened in the home. (1) Watch for false equivalent words. (1) Watch for false equivalent words. (2) Watch for deductions starting with one setting then onto the next. (1) Watch for false equivalent words. (2) Watch for deductions starting with one setting then onto the next. (3) Look at the first source (B) and not only the halfway source (A). (1) Watch for false equivalent words. (2) Watch for deductions starting with one setting then onto the next. (3) Look at the first source (B) and not only the middle of the road source (A). (4) Be watchful. Be wary.

Slide 8

[Article:] a man who utilizes a hand-firearm as a part of self-preservation is eight times more inclined to be killed than one who discreetly submits [Article:] a man who utilizes a hand-weapon as a part of self-protection is eight times more inclined to be killed than one who unobtrusively assents [Article:] a man who utilizes a hand-weapon as a part of self-preservation is eight times more inclined to be killed than one who discreetly assents [A:] An overview of Chicago burglaries in 1975 uncovered that, of those casualties taking no resistance measures, the likelihood of death was 7.67 for each 1000 theft occurrences, while the passing rate among those taking self-insurance measures was 64.29 for every 1000 burglary episodes. The casualty was 8 times more inclined to be killed when utilizing a self-defensive measure than not! [A:] An overview of Chicago burglaries in 1975 uncovered that, of those casualties taking no resistance measures, the likelihood of death was 7.67 for every 1000 theft occurrences, while the demise rate among those taking self-security measures was 64.29 for each 1000 burglary episodes. The casualty was 8 times more prone to be killed when utilizing a self-defensive measure than not! [A:] An overview of Chicago thefts in 1975 uncovered that, of those casualties taking no resistanc

Recommended
View more...