When governments have a power great than the people it is no longer truly free. No matter how omnipotent a government may seem, you must always look to the future to be sure that another Hitler or Stalin does not rise to power and take advantage of such a situation. Power corrupts even the best of men.
You mentioned something very important in your analysis. Culture, the difference is "night and day". Tell what was the diversity like in Switzerland? How many Blacks, Hispanics, Arabic, Indians, etc. did you see walking around? How diverse was Religion? How densely populated were they? Whats the overall crime per capita look like for all of those other countries? How strict are laws, how well are they enforced? There are multiple factors that come into this, and you can't simply look at guns.
Why is the number of Blacks, Arabs and others important? ALL Arab countries have much less crime and much less firearm violence than the US. They also have a lot stricter gun control than the US. I don't see where ethnic origin has anything to do with gun violence, and I believe only the skin heads and racists every comment in that regard.
The numbers are important because whether you like to admit it or not the issue of race, religion, wealth, population density, and ideological beliefs factor into what causes crime. If gun control works so good why is Australia on the top of the list for overall crime per capita? You can point to countries like the UK, and others and say they had fewer murders . The question is, can you honestly claim they had less murders before their respective gun ban?
I'm curious at your answer. Australia doesn't seem to be on top, yet you point to it to defend your racist statement. Why?
You can go back in time and find UK, and most of the world, with low murder rates, but greater gun control, both before and after. Please provide the source of y our information. I've used NationMaster and others.
I'm sorry, must have been thinking of a different stat. Who's at number 6 though? # 1Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people # 2 New Zealand:105.881 per 1,000 people # 3 Finland:101.526 per 1,000 people # 4 Denmark:92.8277 per 1,000 people # 5 Chile:88.226 per 1,000 people # 6 United Kingdom:85.5517 per 1,000 people # 7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people # 8 U.S.:80.0645 per 1,000 people # 9 Netherlands:79.5779 per 1,000 people # 10 South Africa:77.1862 per 1,000 people
I was using "Nationmaster" myself. As to my "racist" statement. Your hero Bill Clinton thought it was a factor as did Philip J. Cook and Jen Ludwig the authors of Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. So stop trying to call me racist because it is a factor.
You should also note that per capita U.K. is usually in the top 10 in all crimes right along with the U.S., and often times Russia
You gun nutters are all the same. I never voted for Clinton. He was more conservative than Bush according to the Cato Institute. But you guys can't think, so you have to use what little info you know.
Your bumper sticker mentality doesn't impress me. There are factors to the FACT that the US has one of the highest rates of gun violence. But to date, you haven't shown any of the big reasons, just small racial ones.
Clinton was also a President that didn't follow through with his promise of "change". As I stated before it's not just race, try reading my posts instead of attempting to make me appear racist. Ideological encompasses moral, and principle beliefs. If you don't hold certain morals with high respect then that attributes to reasons as to why one would be able to commit such acts as those at Virginia Tech, some deaths are caused because some have extremely strong beliefs like Fort Hood.
Yo're the one who brings race and religion into the picture. You want to know about Switz? Many are Catholic, but most are Protestant. They have a very densely populated country. So??
Those are SMALL factors.
The MAIN factor is their respect of firearms. They have seen two major wars on their borders. They KNOW guns kill. Guns also create permanent damage. That's why they RESPECT guns and DON'T bring them unless they're going to use them.
I am the one who brings race and religion into the Picture. You state my case for me although different in some ways "Many are Catholic, but most are Protestant". Still mostly Christian, and mostly Caucasian, the diversity is minuscule. Switzerland's people are also the militia, are they not? They're allowed to have any firearms they wish last I checked. Not so Small if you put it in context.
Ahh, the discrimination comes out in full swing here. "Still mostly Christian, and mostly Caucasian", spoken like a true skinhead. You would have made a GREAT Nazi.
Your "gun facts" about Switz. are quite erroneous. They can't just choose their weapon of choice. AND they cannot use their gun AT ALL unless authorized by the gov. AND they have a much healthier view of guns and have very strict gun laws, unlike the US.
When it comes down to it, its the small reasons that make up the "Big Reasons". Fact: The majority of crimes committed are nearby densely populated metropolitan areas. Fact: 100% of cities with population greater than or equal to 250,000 reported gang activity in 2001. Fact: 59% of all homicides in 2001 in L.A. and 53% in Chicago were gang related, there was a total of 698 gang related homicides in these two cities.
Culture and, Ideology, these are what I believe to be the main factors.
According to the U.S. Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics, although the rates of murder and rape are higher in the U.S., England has surpassed us in its rate of robberies, assaults, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. And the English crime rate has been rising while the U.S. rate had been falling. In 1998 the mugging rate in England was 40% higher than in the U.S., furthermore, assault and burglary rates were nearly 100% higher in England than in the United States.
In 1996, in the wake of a mass shooting, the Australian government seized more than 640,000 guns from its citizens. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the next two years, armed robbery rose by 73%, unarmed robbery by 28%, kidnapping by 38%, assault by 17% and manslaughter by 29%.
You need to read snopes dissection of this falsity. Robberies with guns have fallen ever since. Also, the increase you allude to is from 7 deaths per year to 19 firearm violence.
And you condemn a country that had ONLY 19 firearm-related deaths in 1997? You are comparing the 100,000 killed per year in the US to 19 in Australia. That's pretty lame.
100,000 v 19 and you condemn the country with ONLY 19 per year.
It may be "lame" to you, but it is straight from your statistical source. I never said I condemn any of those country's. Just stating statistical relevance per capita. Which is far more important than totals when you look at population.
Pure bs. You quote percentages because the reality is, the murder rate in those countries are don't ALL come from firearms. When you look at that comparison, The US is #8, Estonia #15, and Poland #24.
You're stats are practically meaningless. We are discussing GUN VIOLENCE, not MURDER RATE.
The two are linked, you can't take into account Firearm Murder rate without also taking into account Total Murder Rate. Especially when doing comparisons as to whether or not legislation reduced the murder rate or crime rate for the year prior to, and after legislation was put into place. If you don't take into consideration crimes as a whole before and after legislation is passed you cannot correctly identify if it worked or not.
I did use the stats in the proper way. I copied the numbers directly from the nationmaster web site.
I was stating the total murder rate per capita is higher than the united States in both Estonia and Poland according to nationmaster. Do you contest that? Firearms aren't required to kill people. According to nationmaster Totals (not per capita) #5 United States 16,204, #24 Poland 716, #55 Estonia 143. Again when compared to population per capita Poland and Estonia rate higher.
The video here is about gun use. I don't care how many people in those countries are killed by frying pans. This is not about frying pans. It's about guns. If you want to discuss frying pans, go somewhere else.
Australia's TOTAL firearm related murders in 1997 was 19. And in the US again??? How many???
I'm glad to see that you've dropped your complete lie about "The majority of "gun control" advocates DO want to see ALL firearms taken"
If I recall correctly you used Poland, and Estonia as a defense of "Gun Control". Yes we have the highest rate of "Gun Violence" but again you attempt to use semantics to avoid lying.
My point is, the instrument of death makes no difference. People will still kill, and injure others. Criminals will continue to commit criminal acts regardless. If you take away the law abiding people's firearms it changes nothing for criminals who commit such acts.
The "War on Drugs" is a prime example of how well our government stops criminals, and illegal items from making it to people. Prohibition of Alcohol in the 1920's is another example of how well prohibition works.
Again with the NRA strawman, "when all guns are banned ...." NO ONE is advocating this. This is a bs false argument perpetrated by the NRAers. I guess you just don't understand very much. Repeat a fantasy long enough and people will forget that it's impossible to achieve.
The War on Drugs was NOT successful. That's ludicrous.
Your only point is illogical at best and naive at worst. You are basically saying that bazookas are okay, because criminals will get them regardless.
"You are basically saying that bazookas are okay, because criminals will get them regardless." Its a true statement. The only reason they don't is because its not cost effective. Firearms are a more simple way and less costly to hit a target, plus many bazookas are not re-loadable. "Repeat a fantasy long enough and people will forget that it's impossible to achieve." Many "gun control" advocates believe it, but Only for the people.
The war on drugs was not successful, that's my point.
Progressive logic down the lines in which most "gun control" advocates talk dictates it. The reason is this. When violent crimes caused by the previously law abiding, no longer have hand guns or "assault weapons" to kill with readily available, will use what is readily available. Hence raising the statistic with the weapon of choice, which then spurs an outcry from Gun Control advocates. It's a perpetual cycle, until none are left.
Its not simply that most bazookas lack re-loading capabilities, one shot is all you got. A pipe bomb, nail bomb, or even napalm is easier to make and by far cheaper than a bazooka.
That is your "proof" that MOST control people want no guns?? You're basing your entire reasoning on something called "progressive logic"???
No proof, then?? No laws trying to be passed? No great "liberal" legislator out there demanding it?? No major movement endorsing it?? Just YOUR Peogressive logic.
Sounds more REGRESSIVE than pro. Rather than faulty logic, why not try facts for a change. You know, break the mold!!
Further, most major gun-control politicians or organization have made the statement at one time that the end-goal is a total gun ban. The fact that they sing to a different tune now doesn't mean that their objective has changed. They've just realized that their objective will not garner enough support when spoken honestly...
Another lie of yours. NO ONE is advocating a total ban. They can't you imbecile. I don't know, but did your mother mate with a vegetable? That would explain a lot.
Ever hear of the 2nd Amendment, clueless?? Ever read it, brainless?? I guess not. According to your stuid remarks the world is the center of the universe and everything revolves around your local moonshine still.
Oh, I see we've recently purchased a dictionary. I'm glad you're finally taking my advice. Do you know what "lie" means?
How about "ban"? Firearms are not all banned in any state, nor will they soon disappear. It's called the second amendment. I'd suggest you pick up a copy and learn it. If you need help with words over two syllables, let me know.
You talk awfully pompous for someone who cannot understand basic English.
I didn't say they were banned. If you have a dictionary, perhaps you should look up the intransitive definition of "infringe." They are infringing on (or encroaching upon) our right to keep and bear arms.
What? Sorry, but it isn't my fault that you can't follow the conversation:
I stated that they wanted a total ban.
You said that the 2nd AoA prevents it.
I pointed out that they are currently infringing on our right to bear arms (in spite of the 2nd AoA) to show that the existence of the 2nd AoA is not going to prevent a full ban if they decide that is what they want to do.
If you keep lying like this, you're going to start sounding really stupid in front of everyone. ALL those quotes are bogus. They are all lies.
Go to: "guncite" and their page "gcbogus" for the truth. Just because somebody lies about quoting another person, doesn't make their lie a true statement.
Speaking of brain-dead people, did you actually read the page you cited? Only one of the quotes was mentioned on there. It didn't say that it was a false quote, it said that Reno claims to have never said it. Now I know this may come as a shock to you, but politicians lie. A lot. All the time...
Her actions while in office tend to support the claim that she did say the quote...
Prove what? What the purpose of my stats were? That I've always said you cannot directly compare crime rates? If so, then go back and read the darn stats. I explained what they meant when I posted them.
That the FBI says you cannot directly compare crime rates? Get someone you know who is intelligent to read the website I cited and explain it to you.
Prove that politicians lie? HAHAHA! Go take your meds.
She was never a politician? Do you know what "politician" means?
And in regard to her actions, need I remind you of the goofy AWB that she vehemently supported? The constant attempt to broaden the definition of "assault weapon"? Nah, I'm sure that none of that happened in Toeg world...
still can't prove your point, eh? She has done nor said anything about banning all weapons and doing away with the second amendment and you can't prove she did.
Your lie stands as a lie. You write garbage and waste people's time, nothing else.
What is wrong? Did you actually look up "politician" and find out that she was one?
Well, Fred Diamond signed an affidavit saying that he heard her say it. It was down to his word against hers, so you idiotic demands for proof are just that.
As far as what she has done, again: Look at her role in the AWB.
Nice try at bait and switch. You can't prove what you wrote "Her actions while in office tend to support the claim that she did say the quote..." You go back to one person's alleged statement. You're a fool.
btw, "Members of the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being politicians since they are generally executing or adjudicating established law and custom."
When were you planning to explain how you compensated for all of the other factors when you directly compared crime rates between nations? Stop trying to distract from this issue and step up to bat...
The majority of "gun control" advocates DO want to see ALL firearms taken from regular everyday people. Progressive logic down the lines in which most "gun control" advocates talk dictates it.
Personally I think all of our politicians here should be hung for treason and acts of sedition and we start anew, not to mention many "news corporations".
People need to stop voting for popular people and start voting for responsible people. We need to vote our conscience regardless of party. People far too often vote down a party line without investigating what these people have done in the past.
There is no country that is completely free of all crime. However, there is no country that has more crime than the US. Clearly, there is room for improvement in the US.
While guns don't commit crimes by themselves, they certainly escalate the crimes in which they are present. Removing all guns is not the answer. IMHO, educating the public and a greater emphasis on ethics and respect will go a long way in reducing this problem.
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey obscene, and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers, in fact he's a liberal Democrat. It appears that Kleck's only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda
I won't tell you that gun related deaths will rise to outstanding numbers. In fact I think there would be fewer, just not as fewer as you would like. I would also contest that it would cause more crime.
The only reason gun related deaths would be down is because when one lacks the ability to defend from an attack there is really only one option, and that's surrender what you have or get shot. That and accidental deaths, plus the self defense deaths that are lumped with murder in most stats.
To refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jen Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high. The Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and suggested that their methodology was too conservative and could actually be doubled
"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."
4.7 million DGUs per year. That sounds like a war zone to me, yet you seem to tout it as something even better than 2.5 million. Tell me, when we get to 10 million DGUs per year, or more depending on the increase in violence that such a stat would suggest, should we celebrate?
How about 100 million DGUs per year. Maybe we should set aside a holiday in honor of having to use a gun just to go grocery shopping in this new utopia of years.
The Defensive Gun Use figure 4.7 is not intended to replace the more-accepted estimate from the National Self Defense Survey, which is 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year -- one every 13 seconds. Instead, it is intended to show that the researchers who did the National Defense Survey were extremely careful in their methodology and conservative in their statements regarding its results.
You miss the entire point, as usual. You gun lovers crack me up. Your strawman, "When guns are outlawed..." is something ONLY you nutters use. No one else ever mentions it, but since you have NO argument, you feel you must use a lie.
I don't want a life where I am FORCED to carry a gun everyday I go to work, go to the store, or go to a game, etc. You'd love everyone to own a bazooka and a
Found lots of them. You wouldn't like their results, though. They don't agree with you. They do compare, but they come to rather different conclusions.
They tend to look at gun usage in public in a negative light. You seem to think that it makes you look more macho, or something.
Why is it that California has the strongest gun control laws on the books in the united States, yet has the highest number for murder by firearm? Why is it when Washington DC had a gun ban for 30 years the crime rate (even while ALL other states were declining) continued to rise or stayed at the same level? Why is it that North Dakota had No murders by Firearms last year yet has some of the loosest gun control laws?
When you compare different insane asylums, you are asking why do crazy people here act one way and crazy people there act another.
Try using areas that don't have such violence. Much of the rest of the world is there. All we need to do is copy their GOOD ideas and discard their BAD ideas, and things will improve. Unfortunately, the word "idea" seems to be unknown to most Americans.
So... What, we're smarter so we can do it better? Is that your reasoning? If so that's arrogance, and ignorance at it's finest. If they were GOOD concepts I would agree, however even the statistics you agree with suggest otherwise.
Sure you did, and I bet you carry them around in your pocket, but I notice that you couldn't name a single one of them... Hm..
According to the FBI, crime stats cannot be directly compared, but hey, what would they know?
Although I have to ask: How does carrying a concealed firearm (you know, one that is out of sight) make me look more macho? Or did you just not have a real refutation and had to make a baseless accusation to distract from that?
Whatsamatta, can't find any kiddies to play with, so you come to the adult pool?
You are lying about the FBI, but that's par for the course for you. You just lie, that's all you know. I have shown that the US is violent, has a gun culture problem, and is in complete denial about it, so what do you do?
So are you suggesting I am lying that the page exists? Or can you simply not read what it is saying?
You have shown that the US is violent. I have shown it always was in comparison to other countries before they adopted gun control
You've *asserted* it results from the "gun culture" but with no empiracal evidence to support that... You also have absolutely no clue what the "gun culture" is...
YOU ARE A LIAR. YOUR SITE says this, "To assess criminality and law enforcements response from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one must consider many variables"
You constantly lie. That's only because you don't know anything and are easily fooled. You are a stupid 22 y/o snot-nosed brat.
All you do is lie. Every post here of yours is replete with your lies. You are worthless.
So you called me a name, said that I lie 4 times, and say I'm worthless. This is the best argument you can come up with?
And do you even understand the sentence you quoted? "One must consider many variables."
Also:
"Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the various unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction."
"According to the FBI, crime stats cannot be directly compared."
Then you point me to a site that says THEY CAN be compared. Do you even know what "cannot" means??
Obviously not. Again, you're a snot-nosed brat that speaks from ignorance. You don't cite the rest of the world, because you can't. You can't understand the stats that are produced and all the variables necessary which give them meaning. I can.
Crime rates cannot be directly compared. There are several other factors which must be accommodated for before a meaningful analysis can be made. This is what I've been saying all along...
I've always said that crime rates cannot be directly compared. I also posted some stats in an effort to show you that it was not a 1:1 relationship.
Ah, so you don't know what it means to "directly" compare something. See, if you had just said that to begin with, we could have avoided a lot of this:
To directly compare stats is to compare, for instance, per capita crime rates without regard to any other contributing factors (in other words, what you've been doing). The FBI says you cannot.
Again, since your powers of retention appear to be very limited, your site quotes this, "To assess criminality and law enforcements response from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one must consider many variables"
One must consider, eg compare, many variables. Are you having trouble with English comprehension?
Go to the merriam webster thesaurus/dictionary and look it up. The definitions are not even remotely the same.
Again, how does your direct comparison of crime rates factor out these differences? Or are you suggesting that all other countries are exact copies of the US, save for their population count?
Why are you afraid to answer?
Again: The FBI says that crime rates cannot be directly compared. You claimed you found several criminologists that say you can. Why can you not name one?
While you are at it, explain to me how directly comparing crime rates takes all the other variables that affect crime rates into consideration? (First, actually look up the definition of "consider."
Are you suggesting that every other country in the world is identical to the US in every way, shape, and form except for population count?
"You can't understand the stats that are produced and all the variables necessary which give them meaning. I can."
Did you mean to finish that off with "Neener, neener, neener!" or do you have some other equally childish closing in mind?
You continually assert that you can directly compare crime rates without regard to the other factors, call me stupid for suggesting otherwise, and then claim that you can understand all the variables?
I think you need to take your meds and go to bed, old man...
"Population size is the only correlate of crime presented in this publication. Although many of the listed factors equally affect the crime ... the UCR Program makes no attempt to relate them to the data presented.
In bold text on the website:
"The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, counties, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis on their population coverage or student enrollment."
"Each year...many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups...use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings...provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents."
You were demanding stats. I posted stats to show you that it was not a 1:1 relationship and, thus, crime rates cannot be compared directly. Try following the actual conversation rather than quote mining.
Looking back over it, it appears that I also posted some stats showing the percentage of gun-crimes/gun-owners; gun-crimes/guns-owned; and the percentage of violent crimes involving guns to show that your argument that the "gun culture" breeds crime has no merit.
It had nothing to do with comparing crime rates or any other stats between two countries, States, Counties, or even towns (IE no comparison was made). Do you know what a "comparison" is?
I admitted I lied? I'm sure in toeg1 world stating that my position hasn't changed is the same as admitting a lie, but unfortunately for you I live in reality.
You've also tried repeatedly to assert that I am somehow less knowledgeable about the gun culture because I have first hand experience with the gun culture. Apparently in Toeg world, the least amount of experience you have with something, the more knowledgeable you will be about it...
I've said repeatedly that the problem is a social problem. That isn't called denying that there is a problem, that is called disputing the source.
I assert that you are less knowledgeable because you are and you constantly prove it. I know all about DIFFERENT cultures. You don't. Apparently, you think the world just looks like the US, only less so.
You are stupid and clueless AND a snot-nosed brat.
"I assert that you are less knowledgeable because you are..."
Yeah... that is a shining example of intelligent discourse...
"Apparently, you think the world just looks like the US, only less so."
Wait... I'm the one saying that there are many differences between our countries and others that affect crime rates. You are the one saying we are all identical other than population count, remember?
"snot-nosed brat" at least I don't act the part like certain Toeg1s I know...
I'm sure there's a flame war somewhere that is missing one of its main players. You have no clue about American gun culture as seen by the rest of the world. You probably never will.
Yours is one of imagining what reality is elsewhere. I've lived elsewhere. I have no pretenses about it.
You'll be so kind as to explain to me how one has not clue of something due to first hand experience.
You'll also be so kind as to explain to me how the opinions of others who have had no first hand experience of something carry more weight than the opinions of those who do.
Gun violence> Homicides> Overall homicide rate> per 100,000 by country #1 South Africa #2 Colombia #3 Guatemala #4 Thailand #5 Paraguay #6 Mexico #7 Belarus #8 Lithuania #9 Zimbabwe #10 Estonia #11 Latvia #12 Barbados #13 Ukraine #14 United States
It is amusing, though, how Toeg1 gets abusive with anyone who disagrees with his mindless crap, posts the same refuted arguments repeatedly, and then accuses everyone else of being a troll.
And why do you keep harping that I post no stats? I posted 2 pages or so worth of stats and an analysis of them. What good does it do for me to continually post stats over and over again when you are going continually make the stupid assertion that I haven't posted any? Do you really think people can't backtrack and read what was posted? You are either very dishonest or a moron (or both). Which is it?
Can you please explain to me, though, how it is better to be stabbed to death rather than shot to death? You keep focusing in on "gun deaths." Is death not death? Why exclude other means of murder?
Not that it matters much because, again, you can't directly compare crime rates between countries.
(Maybe through repetition I can get it through your head...)
One could say the same to you. You don't have a clue what the "gun culture" you are continually railing against actually is because you don't have first hand experience with it. And as I have pointed out numerous ways, empirical evidence doesn't support your contentions. Sounds like ignorance to me.
And how could one claim that my first hand experience on the subject makes me ignorant of the subject? That's a contradiction, isn't it? But then, gun control advocates always contradict themselves.
Toeg claims (falsely) that the "gun culture" is to blame for our high crime rates.
Interestingly on page 5 of the DOJ's 2006 NCVS, firearms were only used in 9% of all violent crime. This figure would include realistic looking fake firearms. Firearms were used in less than half of the violent crimes in which the offender was armed...
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the "gun culture" bred crime, that guns would be used in most crimes rather than being used in only a small fraction of crimes?
They likely aren't used only once. However, assuming that they are inflates the stats in favor of gun-control. Even being so biased against gun rights, the numbers simply don't support this guy's assertions that it is the so-called "gun culture" causing high crime rates.
Then, of course, we could support that even more by showing that the areas in the US where private firearm ownership is higher, the crime rates tend to be lower...
I'm with you 100%. I like turning the tables on them they ask for my sources I insist on them giving sources and I repeatedly ask WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE RAPED AND MURDERED WHY DO THEY FEEL THESE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED. I have yet to get an answerto either question.
You likely never will. I've noticed, like you, that they always demand sources, but almost never give them. I have a feeling that is because the majority of their "info" comes from the Brady Campaign, and they are too ashamed to admit it.
When possible, I try purposefully to be biased against gun rights in my figures. It keeps them from accusing me of being biased against them, and plus it helps to drive the point home.
Why don't you look at the rest of the world. Why is the violence so high in the US. It isn't due to guns alone. It is due to the gun culture that permeates American society. The stats don't lie.
Nationmaster has all the stats you need. It is there in black and white. You guys NEVER look at stats because it proves how violent American society is and wants to remain.
Again, What do you have to say to the people that would have been raped and murdered, why do you feel these people should not be protected, what do you think this should happen to them?
That's an old and worn argument. You can't stop ALL crime, not even with 800,000 people carrying concealed weapons in Florida (right now - hasn't stopped crime now has it?).
The correct solution is to reduce crime, not give people tanks to drive around. Your solution is to arm everyone to the teeth. My way is to reduce crime. Your way has one of the worst violent stats in the world, mine doesn't. Your way kills innocents much more. It's been proven. Nationmaster. Read the truth.
It's old and worn out because you won't answer. Your "solution" has been proven false with every shall issue and castle doctrine passed. So answer my question state legitimate sources or continue to entertain us with this disney movie you live in.
Having trouble undestanding English, I see. Nationmaster. It's a website. It has a lot of proof.
7 people were killed in shooting-related deaths in England and Wales for the entire month of May, 2009. 55 million people, 7 deaths. That would equate to 40 deaths in the US.
There were probably more than 1,000 in the US. The UK, and 85% of the world is safer than the US. Those are facts. Nationmaster. Read the facts. Learn English. Quit believing lies.
I did check Nationmaster and all the articles it brought up had a warning about neutralality and facts being in dispute. I ask all people with brains who want the truth to check the D.O.J. ,F.B.I., N.R.A.and the related state police forces involved. what do you have to sat to all the people who were not raped or murdered because a gun protected them, why do you think these crimes should have been allow to occur?
You just don't get it, do you? You saw the stats on how bad the US is in gun violence on Nationmaster, so you stopped looking at the truth.
I understand. The truth hurts.
You cannot possibly prevent ALL rapes by arming people. That's impossible. If you had a brain, you'd know this.
You have to stop the need for crime, not arm all the people, including all the criminals. You want every crazy person to have a gun so you have an excuse to kill them. That's sick.
I really believe you need in-patient care I AN SERIOUS. I didn't even look at the numbers when it said neutralality and facts were in dispute(that means they are junk). Your statement implies we should stop trying to reduce crime since we can't prevent ALL crime(mental defect). You keep insisting everyone want to kill people(another mental defect) when most of us try to keep people from harm(delusion you know what everyone is thinking-mental defect)Most crime is not from need it is from want.
Your site proved your stats to be iffy at best lies at worst.AGAIN WHY TELL THE PEOPLE THAT DID GET SAVED WHY YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE RAPED AND MURERED. I'm sure we all want to know.
As I have shown, the US has more crime than any other country on Earth.
1. US 11.8 million
2. UK 6.5 million
3. Germany 6.5 million
4. France 3.7 million
Your system provides for more crime than anyone. And you want to give everyone more guns.
The US has more inmates than any other country on Earth.
Yours is obviously a system of fools where crime and imprisonment is applauded. That's stupid and you should be ashamed. Rather than helping, you are creating the problem.
Do we start with the stats your source says maybe false,your mental health or the victoms you are teying to create and why you think they should be raped and killed.
The sources are valid. The stats are used everywhere. They come from the UN and world statistical organizations responsible for the information which is used by all countries.
If you have better stats, present them.
The fact that you present nothing, refuse the truth when it is spoken, and can't grasp simple reality isn't new at all.
More crime is committed in the US NEEDLESSLY because of your method. It doesn't need to happen, but you want it to.
AGAIN NATIONMASTER SAID ITS NEUTRALALITY AND FACTURALITY ARE IN DISPUTE, so you have not presented anything either, AGAIN YOU CLAIM TO READ MINDS. I always attempt to delay the low life, tell the target to leave the area, then explain to the scum that the "prize"is gone they should leave too. Mostly it works sometimes it gets ugly. PLEASE SEEK HELP.
You're a fool if you think that I don't understand disclaimers. This is the source:
The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
You are stupid and disingenuine. You provide nothing.
95,000 women are raped every year. That can be reduced to under 10,000, but you don't want to keep 85,000 women from being raped. You're sick.
The depo. of justice, fed. beu. of inves.,state police, and N.R.A don't have disclaimers. You claim reduce crime by reduceing need who needs to rapeand how do guns rape. PLEASE SEEK HELP.
What a stupid, pathetic, little, idiot liar you are. This is from THE OFFICIAL FBI WEBSITE:
"Therefore, the FBI does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information."
You should actually look before you make stupid, pathetic lies like that you imbecile. But that would mean that you actually have a brain, which you obviously don't.
What a stupid jerk you are. Are you ten, or is that just your IQ??
You're pathetic. I have stated that up to 85,000 rapes annually could be avoided and all you worry about is lying about the FBI.
What a stupid, pathetic little man you are.
You lie. You do not provide any facts. You're stupid. You make up lies as you go along and refuse to look at meaningful, hard evidence when it's presented to you.
Tellus how can all these rapes be avoided. You stated earlier if need was eliminated crime would stop explain the needs fixed by rape, drugs, gangs,D.U.I., vandalizing,bank robbery....
So Mary who lost a hand blocking a knife aimed ather throat moments later saved by a gun is dead. Jen attacked by four guys with a gun save by my gun would be dead(criminals will still carry their illegal guns in public)(I shot no one equal force usually is all thats needed). So all these having not worked for others will work for you why? You haven't got help yet have you?
Mary is a fantasy inside your sick head. I said that 85,000 women, or 85,000 Marys if you want, don't need to be raped each year in the US. You talk of one person, I talk of 85,000.
You come on here and lie. You're a liar. You come on here and spout stupid lies. You know nothing and yet, you spout your lies over and over.
You're nothing but a stupid, pathetic liar who knows nothing about reality. Go and lie somewhere else. I have shown your lies to the world.
Mary is a woman I went to school with who was pulled outof a 7-11 by a nut job that had been mistreated by female family members all his life.Jen was a bar worker from S. Amer. was very dark but hated being confused with Africans. These people are real and as hard as it is to believe you don't know it all and can't read minds or rule the world. Have you gotten help yet?
After proving that you lie for any reason, I can't take your word for anything. 85,000 women are raped annually because of a system you support and applaud and even lie over.
You lie.
You have shown no remorse in lying. Apparently, that's just part of the game for you. Lie enough and people will stop thinking.
What do you say to 85,000 rape victims every year who are needlessly raped?
What sick puppy allows 85,000 rape victims and then lies???
No I'm honest and I don't live in never never land and I don't think I can read minds or know the life history of every one on the netand I don't think I should run the world. It seems you haven't gotten help yet.
And here we go with the uneducated trying to make direct comparisons between nations, regardless of the fact that all professionals who do this sort of thing for a living say that one cannot directly compare crime rates to reach any kind of meaningful conclusion.
I've already offered plenty of stats and evidence.
Do you REALLY think it makes you look intelligent to assert to everyone reading that you can't comprehend a word of my posts?
You are showing that you are too simple minded to process my posts, or to closed minded to consider them. Neither aids your credibility (if you wish to think you still have some)
bldgy, You're nothing more than a stupid troll. More stats for you, stupid troll: Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country: # 1 South Africa: # 2 Colombia: # 3 Thailand: # 4 Zimbabwe: # 5 Mexico: # 6 Belarus: # 7 Costa Rica: # 8 United States: The US is 8th worst in the world. This is YOUR style of gun control. YOUR style of gun control has over 190 countries better than the US.
Speaking of stupid trolls, all experts in the world agree that you cannot directly compare the crime rates of different nations and reach a meaningful conclusion. ALL EXPERTS AGREE ON THIS. There are too many variables that affect crime rates to be able to do say and say, "this one variable makes the difference." Such arguments are made by the uneducated and the simple minded.
bldgy, "All experts agree." Pure bs. NO stats. Just bs. Nowhere, under any subject, do all experts agree. What an idiot. Gun violence > Homicides > Firearm homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. (most recent) by country # 1 South Africa: # 2 Colombia: # 3 Thailand: # 4 Guatemala: # 5 Paraguay: # 6 Zimbabwe: # 7 Mexico: # 8 United States: The US is 8th worst in the world.
No experts agree on any subject? So experts in science fields do not agree that the scientific method should be followed? Really?
Again: All experts agree that one cannot directly compare crime rates between nations and reach a meaningful conclusion. There are too many variables
Interestingly, those who conduct scientific studies in any field would agree that to reach meaningful conclusions, one must limit the number of variables. You claim to have a degree in science, yet you don't know this?
Again, notice the lack of focus, of argument. This is mere knee-jerk reaction to statements, not a meaningful argument.
This is the sign of a troll.
bldgy is a troll, nothing more. No argument, no stats. No rebuttal on what I've posted below, except to say some hypothetical nonsense with no proof whatsoever.
This is how a troll operates. Throughout, bldgy has proven himself to be nothing more than a troll.
Yes, because stating that experts say one cannot directly compare crime rates and explaining the logic behind it is a "knee jerk reaction" to someone who mindlessly posts the same goofy, meaningless stats over and over and over....
Meanwhile, you make the "meaningful" arguments such as asserting that I am hearing voices in my head, and then you mindlessly post direct comparisons between countries over and over and over in spite of the fact nothing meaningful can be derived from them...
I will always keep a gun regardless of the crime rate. I like them, I want them, they are mine!
Mikevdog 2 years ago
When governments have a power great than the people it is no longer truly free. No matter how omnipotent a government may seem, you must always look to the future to be sure that another Hitler or Stalin does not rise to power and take advantage of such a situation. Power corrupts even the best of men.
siradon2000 2 years ago
You mentioned something very important in your analysis. Culture, the difference is "night and day". Tell what was the diversity like in Switzerland? How many Blacks, Hispanics, Arabic, Indians, etc. did you see walking around? How diverse was Religion? How densely populated were they? Whats the overall crime per capita look like for all of those other countries? How strict are laws, how well are they enforced? There are multiple factors that come into this, and you can't simply look at guns.
siradon2000 2 years ago
Hmmm,
Why is the number of Blacks, Arabs and others important? ALL Arab countries have much less crime and much less firearm violence than the US. They also have a lot stricter gun control than the US. I don't see where ethnic origin has anything to do with gun violence, and I believe only the skin heads and racists every comment in that regard.
toeg1 2 years ago
The numbers are important because whether you like to admit it or not the issue of race, religion, wealth, population density, and ideological beliefs factor into what causes crime. If gun control works so good why is Australia on the top of the list for overall crime per capita? You can point to countries like the UK, and others and say they had fewer murders . The question is, can you honestly claim they had less murders before their respective gun ban?
siradon2000 2 years ago
sorry,
I'm curious at your answer. Australia doesn't seem to be on top, yet you point to it to defend your racist statement. Why?
You can go back in time and find UK, and most of the world, with low murder rates, but greater gun control, both before and after. Please provide the source of y our information. I've used NationMaster and others.
toeg1 2 years ago
siradon2000 2 years ago
sherry,
Oooh. The bike theiving Brits. They are an evil to mankind.
toeg1 2 years ago
I was using "Nationmaster" myself. As to my "racist" statement. Your hero Bill Clinton thought it was a factor as did Philip J. Cook and Jen Ludwig the authors of Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. So stop trying to call me racist because it is a factor.
You should also note that per capita U.K. is usually in the top 10 in all crimes right along with the U.S., and often times Russia
siradon2000 2 years ago
Ahh sherry-baby,
You gun nutters are all the same. I never voted for Clinton. He was more conservative than Bush according to the Cato Institute. But you guys can't think, so you have to use what little info you know.
Your bumper sticker mentality doesn't impress me. There are factors to the FACT that the US has one of the highest rates of gun violence. But to date, you haven't shown any of the big reasons, just small racial ones.
toeg1 2 years ago
Clinton was also a President that didn't follow through with his promise of "change". As I stated before it's not just race, try reading my posts instead of attempting to make me appear racist. Ideological encompasses moral, and principle beliefs. If you don't hold certain morals with high respect then that attributes to reasons as to why one would be able to commit such acts as those at Virginia Tech, some deaths are caused because some have extremely strong beliefs like Fort Hood.
siradon2000 2 years ago
sherry,
Yo're the one who brings race and religion into the picture. You want to know about Switz? Many are Catholic, but most are Protestant. They have a very densely populated country. So??
Those are SMALL factors.
The MAIN factor is their respect of firearms. They have seen two major wars on their borders. They KNOW guns kill. Guns also create permanent damage. That's why they RESPECT guns and DON'T bring them unless they're going to use them.
toeg1 2 years ago
I am the one who brings race and religion into the Picture. You state my case for me although different in some ways "Many are Catholic, but most are Protestant". Still mostly Christian, and mostly Caucasian, the diversity is minuscule. Switzerland's people are also the militia, are they not? They're allowed to have any firearms they wish last I checked. Not so Small if you put it in context.
siradon2000 2 years ago
@siradon2000
Ahh, the discrimination comes out in full swing here. "Still mostly Christian, and mostly Caucasian", spoken like a true skinhead. You would have made a GREAT Nazi.
Your "gun facts" about Switz. are quite erroneous. They can't just choose their weapon of choice. AND they cannot use their gun AT ALL unless authorized by the gov. AND they have a much healthier view of guns and have very strict gun laws, unlike the US.
toeg1 2 years ago
When it comes down to it, its the small reasons that make up the "Big Reasons". Fact: The majority of crimes committed are nearby densely populated metropolitan areas. Fact: 100% of cities with population greater than or equal to 250,000 reported gang activity in 2001. Fact: 59% of all homicides in 2001 in L.A. and 53% in Chicago were gang related, there was a total of 698 gang related homicides in these two cities.
Culture and, Ideology, these are what I believe to be the main factors.
siradon2000 2 years ago
According to the U.S. Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics, although the rates of murder and rape are higher in the U.S., England has surpassed us in its rate of robberies, assaults, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. And the English crime rate has been rising while the U.S. rate had been falling. In 1998 the mugging rate in England was 40% higher than in the U.S., furthermore, assault and burglary rates were nearly 100% higher in England than in the United States.
siradon2000 2 years ago
In 1996, in the wake of a mass shooting, the Australian government seized more than 640,000 guns from its citizens. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the next two years, armed robbery rose by 73%, unarmed robbery by 28%, kidnapping by 38%, assault by 17% and manslaughter by 29%.
siradon2000 2 years ago
@siradon2000 ,
You need to read snopes dissection of this falsity. Robberies with guns have fallen ever since. Also, the increase you allude to is from 7 deaths per year to 19 firearm violence.
And you condemn a country that had ONLY 19 firearm-related deaths in 1997? You are comparing the 100,000 killed per year in the US to 19 in Australia. That's pretty lame.
100,000 v 19 and you condemn the country with ONLY 19 per year.
That's stupid.
toeg1 2 years ago
It may be "lame" to you, but it is straight from your statistical source. I never said I condemn any of those country's. Just stating statistical relevance per capita. Which is far more important than totals when you look at population.
siradon2000 2 years ago
sira,
Pure bs. You quote percentages because the reality is, the murder rate in those countries are don't ALL come from firearms. When you look at that comparison, The US is #8, Estonia #15, and Poland #24.
You're stats are practically meaningless. We are discussing GUN VIOLENCE, not MURDER RATE.
toeg1 2 years ago
The two are linked, you can't take into account Firearm Murder rate without also taking into account Total Murder Rate. Especially when doing comparisons as to whether or not legislation reduced the murder rate or crime rate for the year prior to, and after legislation was put into place. If you don't take into consideration crimes as a whole before and after legislation is passed you cannot correctly identify if it worked or not.
siradon2000 2 years ago
Did you just attempt to say that 100,000 are killed by firearms in the united States every year?
siradon2000 2 years ago
sira,
If you don't like my number, than put in the correct one. I dare you to use stats in a proper way.
toeg1 2 years ago
I did use the stats in the proper way. I copied the numbers directly from the nationmaster web site.
I was stating the total murder rate per capita is higher than the united States in both Estonia and Poland according to nationmaster. Do you contest that? Firearms aren't required to kill people. According to nationmaster Totals (not per capita) #5 United States 16,204, #24 Poland 716, #55 Estonia 143. Again when compared to population per capita Poland and Estonia rate higher.
siradon2000 2 years ago
Unlike you I'm not afraid to admit the truth, or the numbers stated. It doesn't negate my argument.
siradon2000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Um sirop,
The video here is about gun use. I don't care how many people in those countries are killed by frying pans. This is not about frying pans. It's about guns. If you want to discuss frying pans, go somewhere else.
Australia's TOTAL firearm related murders in 1997 was 19. And in the US again??? How many???
I'm glad to see that you've dropped your complete lie about "The majority of "gun control" advocates DO want to see ALL firearms taken"
You shouldn't lie.
toeg1 2 years ago
Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
# 5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
# 7 Estonia:0.107277 per 1,000 people
# 20 Poland:0.0562789 per 1,000 people
# 24United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
# 43 Australia:0.0150324 per 1,000 people
# 46 United Kingdom:0.0140633 per 1,000 people
If I recall correctly you used Poland, and Estonia as a defense of "Gun Control". Yes we have the highest rate of "Gun Violence" but again you attempt to use semantics to avoid lying.
siradon2000 2 years ago
My point is, the instrument of death makes no difference. People will still kill, and injure others. Criminals will continue to commit criminal acts regardless. If you take away the law abiding people's firearms it changes nothing for criminals who commit such acts.
The "War on Drugs" is a prime example of how well our government stops criminals, and illegal items from making it to people. Prohibition of Alcohol in the 1920's is another example of how well prohibition works.
siradon2000 2 years ago
soupy,
Again with the NRA strawman, "when all guns are banned ...." NO ONE is advocating this. This is a bs false argument perpetrated by the NRAers. I guess you just don't understand very much. Repeat a fantasy long enough and people will forget that it's impossible to achieve.
The War on Drugs was NOT successful. That's ludicrous.
Your only point is illogical at best and naive at worst. You are basically saying that bazookas are okay, because criminals will get them regardless.
toeg1 2 years ago
"You are basically saying that bazookas are okay, because criminals will get them regardless." Its a true statement. The only reason they don't is because its not cost effective. Firearms are a more simple way and less costly to hit a target, plus many bazookas are not re-loadable. "Repeat a fantasy long enough and people will forget that it's impossible to achieve." Many "gun control" advocates believe it, but Only for the people.
The war on drugs was not successful, that's my point.
siradon2000 2 years ago
syria,
You crack me up. The reason for not using bazookas is "many bazookas are not re-loadable." You're hilarious.
You wrote this:
The majority of "gun control" advocates DO want to see ALL firearms taken
that's pure bs. Prove it or accept the fact that you lied.
toeg1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Progressive logic down the lines in which most "gun control" advocates talk dictates it. The reason is this. When violent crimes caused by the previously law abiding, no longer have hand guns or "assault weapons" to kill with readily available, will use what is readily available. Hence raising the statistic with the weapon of choice, which then spurs an outcry from Gun Control advocates. It's a perpetual cycle, until none are left.
siradon2000 2 years ago
Its not simply that most bazookas lack re-loading capabilities, one shot is all you got. A pipe bomb, nail bomb, or even napalm is easier to make and by far cheaper than a bazooka.
siradon2000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sterile,
You wrote this:
"Progressive logic down the lines ..."
That is your "proof" that MOST control people want no guns?? You're basing your entire reasoning on something called "progressive logic"???
No proof, then?? No laws trying to be passed? No great "liberal" legislator out there demanding it?? No major movement endorsing it?? Just YOUR Peogressive logic.
Sounds more REGRESSIVE than pro. Rather than faulty logic, why not try facts for a change. You know, break the mold!!
toeg1 2 years ago
History sets this precedent.
Further, most major gun-control politicians or organization have made the statement at one time that the end-goal is a total gun ban. The fact that they sing to a different tune now doesn't mean that their objective has changed. They've just realized that their objective will not garner enough support when spoken honestly...
bldgy 2 years ago
bulky,
Another lie of yours. NO ONE is advocating a total ban. They can't you imbecile. I don't know, but did your mother mate with a vegetable? That would explain a lot.
Ever hear of the 2nd Amendment, clueless?? Ever read it, brainless?? I guess not. According to your stuid remarks the world is the center of the universe and everything revolves around your local moonshine still.
What a complete moron.
toeg1 2 years ago
Yeah, the 2nd AoA which says that they cannot encroach upon our right to keep and bear arms...
Yet they already are. So how does its existence prove they cannot?
But by all means. Keep calling me names.
And no one is advocating a total ban? please...
bldgy 2 years ago
@bulky,
You wrote this:
"Yet they already are."
Again, this is a lie. You are stating that "they" are "encroaching upon our right to keep and bear arms."
Prove this or retract it. This is a complete lie.
toeg1 2 years ago
There are something like 10,000 gun control laws on the books. Do you know what the word "infringe" means?
In some States you cannot carry a firearm. Do you know what the word "bear" means?
bldgy 2 years ago
@blood,
Oh, I see we've recently purchased a dictionary. I'm glad you're finally taking my advice. Do you know what "lie" means?
How about "ban"? Firearms are not all banned in any state, nor will they soon disappear. It's called the second amendment. I'd suggest you pick up a copy and learn it. If you need help with words over two syllables, let me know.
toeg1 2 years ago
You talk awfully pompous for someone who cannot understand basic English.
I didn't say they were banned. If you have a dictionary, perhaps you should look up the intransitive definition of "infringe." They are infringing on (or encroaching upon) our right to keep and bear arms.
bldgy 2 years ago
nebulous response, non sequitor.
Ohh, we used to say, "They're banning all firearms," but now we must change our lie to, "They may be infringing on our right to bear arms."
You'd make a great politician, you change your lie to suit the moment.
toeg1 2 years ago
What? Sorry, but it isn't my fault that you can't follow the conversation:
I stated that they wanted a total ban.
You said that the 2nd AoA prevents it.
I pointed out that they are currently infringing on our right to bear arms (in spite of the 2nd AoA) to show that the existence of the 2nd AoA is not going to prevent a full ban if they decide that is what they want to do.
Up to speed now?
bldgy 2 years ago
"The Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
--Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, April 5,1996
"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-- Janet Reno, US Attorney General
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
bldgy 2 years ago
@braindead,
If you keep lying like this, you're going to start sounding really stupid in front of everyone. ALL those quotes are bogus. They are all lies.
Go to: "guncite" and their page "gcbogus" for the truth. Just because somebody lies about quoting another person, doesn't make their lie a true statement.
You should quit lying like that.
toeg1 2 years ago
Speaking of brain-dead people, did you actually read the page you cited? Only one of the quotes was mentioned on there. It didn't say that it was a false quote, it said that Reno claims to have never said it. Now I know this may come as a shock to you, but politicians lie. A lot. All the time...
Her actions while in office tend to support the claim that she did say the quote...
bldgy 2 years ago
prove it.
toeg1 2 years ago
Prove what? What the purpose of my stats were? That I've always said you cannot directly compare crime rates? If so, then go back and read the darn stats. I explained what they meant when I posted them.
That the FBI says you cannot directly compare crime rates? Get someone you know who is intelligent to read the website I cited and explain it to you.
Prove that politicians lie? HAHAHA! Go take your meds.
bldgy 2 years ago
@braindead,
No, pompous brat. Prove this, idiot:
"Her actions while in office tend to support the claim that she did say the quote..."
Janet Reno, not politicians. She was never a politician anyway.
toeg1 2 years ago
She was never a politician? Do you know what "politician" means?
And in regard to her actions, need I remind you of the goofy AWB that she vehemently supported? The constant attempt to broaden the definition of "assault weapon"? Nah, I'm sure that none of that happened in Toeg world...
bldgy 2 years ago
what office was she voted into?
Think before you make a fool of yourself.
toeg1 2 years ago
A politician is not necessarily voted into an office, nor do they necessarily run for an office.
Consult a dictionary before you make a fool of yourself...
bldgy 2 years ago
still can't prove your point, eh? She has done nor said anything about banning all weapons and doing away with the second amendment and you can't prove she did.
Your lie stands as a lie. You write garbage and waste people's time, nothing else.
toeg1 2 years ago
What is wrong? Did you actually look up "politician" and find out that she was one?
Well, Fred Diamond signed an affidavit saying that he heard her say it. It was down to his word against hers, so you idiotic demands for proof are just that.
As far as what she has done, again: Look at her role in the AWB.
bldgy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bludgeon,
Nice try at bait and switch. You can't prove what you wrote "Her actions while in office tend to support the claim that she did say the quote..." You go back to one person's alleged statement. You're a fool.
btw, "Members of the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being politicians since they are generally executing or adjudicating established law and custom."
Stop being such a brat, you waste my time.
toeg1 2 years ago
Bait and switch??? That was the center of the entire Reno issue! You called me a liar and said that she didn't say it. I pointed out she did.
In regards to her actions: LOOK AT HER PART IN THE AWB. What part of that can't you understand?
BTW: "Usually" does not mean "never" and certainly doesn't mean any individual can't be considered a politician.
BTW: Look up "politician" in the dictionary...
bldgy 2 years ago
Or rather I pointed out that it is her word against someone elses and that her actions followed the ideology conveyed in the quote...
bldgy 2 years ago
Also BTW: The attorney general does not merely execute or adjudicate "established law and custom."
Perhaps you should look into the roles they have played in politics. Especially Janet Reno.
Or you could stop trying to use your silly semantics games to distract from the fact that you were caught with your pants down...
bldgy 2 years ago
Speaking of bait-and-switches:
When were you planning to explain how you compensated for all of the other factors when you directly compared crime rates between nations? Stop trying to distract from this issue and step up to bat...
bldgy 2 years ago
The majority of "gun control" advocates DO want to see ALL firearms taken from regular everyday people. Progressive logic down the lines in which most "gun control" advocates talk dictates it.
siradon2000 2 years ago
Personally I think all of our politicians here should be hung for treason and acts of sedition and we start anew, not to mention many "news corporations".
People need to stop voting for popular people and start voting for responsible people. We need to vote our conscience regardless of party. People far too often vote down a party line without investigating what these people have done in the past.
siradon2000 2 years ago
all,
There is no country that is completely free of all crime. However, there is no country that has more crime than the US. Clearly, there is room for improvement in the US.
While guns don't commit crimes by themselves, they certainly escalate the crimes in which they are present. Removing all guns is not the answer. IMHO, educating the public and a greater emphasis on ethics and respect will go a long way in reducing this problem.
See my comments below.
toeg1 2 years ago
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
siradon2000 2 years ago
In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey obscene, and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers, in fact he's a liberal Democrat. It appears that Kleck's only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda
siradon2000 2 years ago
shiraz,
What does his political party affiliation and his overall political viewpoint have to do with anything?
toeg1 2 years ago
I won't tell you that gun related deaths will rise to outstanding numbers. In fact I think there would be fewer, just not as fewer as you would like. I would also contest that it would cause more crime.
The only reason gun related deaths would be down is because when one lacks the ability to defend from an attack there is really only one option, and that's surrender what you have or get shot. That and accidental deaths, plus the self defense deaths that are lumped with murder in most stats.
siradon2000 2 years ago
To refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jen Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high. The Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and suggested that their methodology was too conservative and could actually be doubled
siradon2000 2 years ago
"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."
siradon2000 2 years ago
sharia,
4.7 million DGUs per year. That sounds like a war zone to me, yet you seem to tout it as something even better than 2.5 million. Tell me, when we get to 10 million DGUs per year, or more depending on the increase in violence that such a stat would suggest, should we celebrate?
How about 100 million DGUs per year. Maybe we should set aside a holiday in honor of having to use a gun just to go grocery shopping in this new utopia of years.
toeg1 2 years ago
The Defensive Gun Use figure 4.7 is not intended to replace the more-accepted estimate from the National Self Defense Survey, which is 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year -- one every 13 seconds. Instead, it is intended to show that the researchers who did the National Defense Survey were extremely careful in their methodology and conservative in their statements regarding its results.
siradon2000 2 years ago
I see. So instead we should allow no one but criminals, law enforcement, and military personnel to have firearms is that it?
That worked out great for the soldiers at Fort Hood didn't it? The Gun Free zone at Virginia Tech did wonders for all those people too.
siradon2000 2 years ago
silly,
You miss the entire point, as usual. You gun lovers crack me up. Your strawman, "When guns are outlawed..." is something ONLY you nutters use. No one else ever mentions it, but since you have NO argument, you feel you must use a lie.
I don't want a life where I am FORCED to carry a gun everyday I go to work, go to the store, or go to a game, etc. You'd love everyone to own a bazooka and a
Sherman Tank (just in case). You're sick.
toeg1 2 years ago
Have you found a criminology expert yet who says you can directly compare crime rates between nations? No? Wonder why that is...
bldgy 2 years ago
bldgy,
Found lots of them. You wouldn't like their results, though. They don't agree with you. They do compare, but they come to rather different conclusions.
They tend to look at gun usage in public in a negative light. You seem to think that it makes you look more macho, or something.
toeg1 2 years ago
Why is it that California has the strongest gun control laws on the books in the united States, yet has the highest number for murder by firearm? Why is it when Washington DC had a gun ban for 30 years the crime rate (even while ALL other states were declining) continued to rise or stayed at the same level? Why is it that North Dakota had No murders by Firearms last year yet has some of the loosest gun control laws?
siradon2000 2 years ago
sherry,
When you compare different insane asylums, you are asking why do crazy people here act one way and crazy people there act another.
Try using areas that don't have such violence. Much of the rest of the world is there. All we need to do is copy their GOOD ideas and discard their BAD ideas, and things will improve. Unfortunately, the word "idea" seems to be unknown to most Americans.
toeg1 2 years ago
So... What, we're smarter so we can do it better? Is that your reasoning? If so that's arrogance, and ignorance at it's finest. If they were GOOD concepts I would agree, however even the statistics you agree with suggest otherwise.
siradon2000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"When you compare different insane asylums, you are asking why do crazy people here act one way and crazy people there act another."
In other words: All info that contradicts what toeg wants to believe should be discarded...
bldgy 2 years ago
Toeg1,
Sure you did, and I bet you carry them around in your pocket, but I notice that you couldn't name a single one of them... Hm..
According to the FBI, crime stats cannot be directly compared, but hey, what would they know?
Although I have to ask: How does carrying a concealed firearm (you know, one that is out of sight) make me look more macho? Or did you just not have a real refutation and had to make a baseless accusation to distract from that?
bldgy 2 years ago
@bulge,
Whatsamatta, can't find any kiddies to play with, so you come to the adult pool?
You are lying about the FBI, but that's par for the course for you. You just lie, that's all you know. I have shown that the US is violent, has a gun culture problem, and is in complete denial about it, so what do you do?
You deny there's a problem.
Stoopid is as stoopid does, I guess.
toeg1 2 years ago
"Variables Affecting Crime":
fbi (dot) gov/ucr/05cius/about /variables_affecting_crime.html
So are you suggesting I am lying that the page exists? Or can you simply not read what it is saying?
You have shown that the US is violent. I have shown it always was in comparison to other countries before they adopted gun control
You've *asserted* it results from the "gun culture" but with no empiracal evidence to support that... You also have absolutely no clue what the "gun culture" is...
bldgy 2 years ago
blindy,
YOU ARE A LIAR. YOUR SITE says this, "To assess criminality and law enforcements response from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one must consider many variables"
You constantly lie. That's only because you don't know anything and are easily fooled. You are a stupid 22 y/o snot-nosed brat.
All you do is lie. Every post here of yours is replete with your lies. You are worthless.
toeg1 2 years ago
So you called me a name, said that I lie 4 times, and say I'm worthless. This is the best argument you can come up with?
And do you even understand the sentence you quoted? "One must consider many variables."
Also:
"Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the various unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction."
Read the last paragraph, for crying out loud...
bldgy 2 years ago
bulge,
You wrote this:
"According to the FBI, crime stats cannot be directly compared."
Then you point me to a site that says THEY CAN be compared. Do you even know what "cannot" means??
Obviously not. Again, you're a snot-nosed brat that speaks from ignorance. You don't cite the rest of the world, because you can't. You can't understand the stats that are produced and all the variables necessary which give them meaning. I can.
toeg1 2 years ago
Do you know what the word "directly" means?
Crime rates cannot be directly compared. There are several other factors which must be accommodated for before a meaningful analysis can be made. This is what I've been saying all along...
bldgy 2 years ago
@baldy,
Okay, you wrote this:
"What good does it do for me to continually post stats"
Now you say that stats can't be compared. You contradict yourself constantly.
BTW, if you want to say they can't be "directly" compared, then how can the FBI say they CAN be? How does one compare them "indirectly"?
toeg1 2 years ago
I've always said that crime rates cannot be directly compared. I also posted some stats in an effort to show you that it was not a 1:1 relationship.
Ah, so you don't know what it means to "directly" compare something. See, if you had just said that to begin with, we could have avoided a lot of this:
To directly compare stats is to compare, for instance, per capita crime rates without regard to any other contributing factors (in other words, what you've been doing). The FBI says you cannot.
bldgy 2 years ago
@blade,
Again, since your powers of retention appear to be very limited, your site quotes this, "To assess criminality and law enforcements response from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one must consider many variables"
One must consider, eg compare, many variables. Are you having trouble with English comprehension?
toeg1 2 years ago
What? Consider and compare do not mean the same thing... Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary...
bldgy 2 years ago
@bonzo,
I'm tired of holding your hand to show you how to learn. You know nothing and you waste my time.
synonym for consider:
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: compare
Synonyms: assess, consider, deliberate, estimate, evaluate, weigh
Now, shut up and leave. By a thesarus, it'll help you tremendously.
toeg1 2 years ago
Now try checking an actual thesaurus. Consider is not listed among the synonyms of consider....
Consider:
Meaning: 1 to think of in a particular way
Synonyms: account, call, count, esteem, hold, rate, reckon, regard, take (for)
bldgy 2 years ago
"compare" is not listed among the synonyms of "consider", rather...
bldgy 2 years ago
go to thesaurus on the internet. Type in the word consider. It will direct you the rest of the way. I'm tired of holding your hand for everything.
toeg1 2 years ago
Go to the merriam webster thesaurus/dictionary and look it up. The definitions are not even remotely the same.
Again, how does your direct comparison of crime rates factor out these differences? Or are you suggesting that all other countries are exact copies of the US, save for their population count?
Why are you afraid to answer?
Again: The FBI says that crime rates cannot be directly compared. You claimed you found several criminologists that say you can. Why can you not name one?
bldgy 2 years ago
While you are at it, explain to me how directly comparing crime rates takes all the other variables that affect crime rates into consideration? (First, actually look up the definition of "consider."
Are you suggesting that every other country in the world is identical to the US in every way, shape, and form except for population count?
bldgy 2 years ago
BTW: You listed the thesaurus entry for "balance", not "consider".
bldgy 2 years ago
"You can't understand the stats that are produced and all the variables necessary which give them meaning. I can."
Did you mean to finish that off with "Neener, neener, neener!" or do you have some other equally childish closing in mind?
You continually assert that you can directly compare crime rates without regard to the other factors, call me stupid for suggesting otherwise, and then claim that you can understand all the variables?
I think you need to take your meds and go to bed, old man...
bldgy 2 years ago
"Population size is the only correlate of crime presented in this publication. Although many of the listed factors equally affect the crime ... the UCR Program makes no attempt to relate them to the data presented.
In bold text on the website:
"The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, counties, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis on their population coverage or student enrollment."
bldgy 2 years ago
"Each year...many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups...use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings...provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents."
Kinda sums up your whole argument....
bldgy 2 years ago
@blank,
Then why did YOU state this:
"What good does it do for me to continually post stats"?
You can't post stats when it's convenient for you to do so, then claim that you can't post stats because they are meaningless.
toeg1 2 years ago
You were demanding stats. I posted stats to show you that it was not a 1:1 relationship and, thus, crime rates cannot be compared directly. Try following the actual conversation rather than quote mining.
bldgy 2 years ago
Looking back over it, it appears that I also posted some stats showing the percentage of gun-crimes/gun-owners; gun-crimes/guns-owned; and the percentage of violent crimes involving guns to show that your argument that the "gun culture" breeds crime has no merit.
It had nothing to do with comparing crime rates or any other stats between two countries, States, Counties, or even towns (IE no comparison was made). Do you know what a "comparison" is?
bldgy 2 years ago
@blld,
You're rambling. You just admitted you lied, you found your own lie, and showed it to me just now. Is it my fault you lied?
toeg1 2 years ago
I admitted I lied? I'm sure in toeg1 world stating that my position hasn't changed is the same as admitting a lie, but unfortunately for you I live in reality.
Go take your meds.
bldgy 2 years ago
You've also tried repeatedly to assert that I am somehow less knowledgeable about the gun culture because I have first hand experience with the gun culture. Apparently in Toeg world, the least amount of experience you have with something, the more knowledgeable you will be about it...
I've said repeatedly that the problem is a social problem. That isn't called denying that there is a problem, that is called disputing the source.
Funny that you call me a liar...
bldgy 2 years ago
blindness,
I assert that you are less knowledgeable because you are and you constantly prove it. I know all about DIFFERENT cultures. You don't. Apparently, you think the world just looks like the US, only less so.
You are stupid and clueless AND a snot-nosed brat.
toeg1 2 years ago
"I assert that you are less knowledgeable because you are..."
Yeah... that is a shining example of intelligent discourse...
"Apparently, you think the world just looks like the US, only less so."
Wait... I'm the one saying that there are many differences between our countries and others that affect crime rates. You are the one saying we are all identical other than population count, remember?
"snot-nosed brat" at least I don't act the part like certain Toeg1s I know...
bldgy 2 years ago
bludgeon,
I'm sure there's a flame war somewhere that is missing one of its main players. You have no clue about American gun culture as seen by the rest of the world. You probably never will.
Yours is one of imagining what reality is elsewhere. I've lived elsewhere. I have no pretenses about it.
Go to your wars with the other ex-Marios.
toeg1 2 years ago
Comment removed
bldgy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You'll be so kind as to explain to me how one has not clue of something due to first hand experience.
You'll also be so kind as to explain to me how the opinions of others who have had no first hand experience of something carry more weight than the opinions of those who do.
Thanks.
bldgy 2 years ago
toeg1 2 years ago
It is amusing, though, how Toeg1 gets abusive with anyone who disagrees with his mindless crap, posts the same refuted arguments repeatedly, and then accuses everyone else of being a troll.
bldgy 2 years ago
And why do you keep harping that I post no stats? I posted 2 pages or so worth of stats and an analysis of them. What good does it do for me to continually post stats over and over again when you are going continually make the stupid assertion that I haven't posted any? Do you really think people can't backtrack and read what was posted? You are either very dishonest or a moron (or both). Which is it?
bldgy 2 years ago
Can you please explain to me, though, how it is better to be stabbed to death rather than shot to death? You keep focusing in on "gun deaths." Is death not death? Why exclude other means of murder?
Not that it matters much because, again, you can't directly compare crime rates between countries.
(Maybe through repetition I can get it through your head...)
bldgy 2 years ago
bldgy,
You live inside the gun culture. You haven't a clue what it looks like from the outside. Your arguments stem from pure ignorance.
trakionfilms 2 years ago
One could say the same to you. You don't have a clue what the "gun culture" you are continually railing against actually is because you don't have first hand experience with it. And as I have pointed out numerous ways, empirical evidence doesn't support your contentions. Sounds like ignorance to me.
And how could one claim that my first hand experience on the subject makes me ignorant of the subject? That's a contradiction, isn't it? But then, gun control advocates always contradict themselves.
bldgy 2 years ago
Toeg claims (falsely) that the "gun culture" is to blame for our high crime rates.
Interestingly on page 5 of the DOJ's 2006 NCVS, firearms were only used in 9% of all violent crime. This figure would include realistic looking fake firearms. Firearms were used in less than half of the violent crimes in which the offender was armed...
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the "gun culture" bred crime, that guns would be used in most crimes rather than being used in only a small fraction of crimes?
bldgy 2 years ago
So obviously, considering I am being biased AGAINST my own stance, the gun control goofs can't object.
According to the ATF: Approx 80,000,000 people privately own approx 180,000,000 firearms.
Based on the assumption above, firearm wielding criminals account for 0.593% of the 80,000,000 known firearm owners.
0.265% of firearms owned were used in violent crimes.
Now, if the "gun culture" were truly responsible for crime rates, shouldn't we expect to see much higher percentages?
bldgy 2 years ago
According to the 2005 NCVS, 477, 040 victims reported that the attacker had a firearm. The following figures are based on these assumptions:
1. All crimes were committed by a different criminal (which we know is untrue)
2. All crimes were committed with a different gun. IE a gun is used in only one crime (which is unlikely)
3. All crimes were committed with a real gun and not a fake one (also unlikely).
These assumptions will inflate the figures in favor of the gun control argument.
bldgy 2 years ago
And if a gun is used in a crime only once why take ballistic tests?
daddyg321 2 years ago
They likely aren't used only once. However, assuming that they are inflates the stats in favor of gun-control. Even being so biased against gun rights, the numbers simply don't support this guy's assertions that it is the so-called "gun culture" causing high crime rates.
Then, of course, we could support that even more by showing that the areas in the US where private firearm ownership is higher, the crime rates tend to be lower...
bldgy 2 years ago
I'm with you 100%. I like turning the tables on them they ask for my sources I insist on them giving sources and I repeatedly ask WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE RAPED AND MURDERED WHY DO THEY FEEL THESE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED. I have yet to get an answerto either question.
daddyg321 2 years ago
You likely never will. I've noticed, like you, that they always demand sources, but almost never give them. I have a feeling that is because the majority of their "info" comes from the Brady Campaign, and they are too ashamed to admit it.
When possible, I try purposefully to be biased against gun rights in my figures. It keeps them from accusing me of being biased against them, and plus it helps to drive the point home.
bldgy 2 years ago
I doubt I will ever get a proper response but continually asking and not getting a response shows the uninformed what's really going on.
daddyg321 2 years ago
daddy,
Why don't you look at the rest of the world. Why is the violence so high in the US. It isn't due to guns alone. It is due to the gun culture that permeates American society. The stats don't lie.
Nationmaster has all the stats you need. It is there in black and white. You guys NEVER look at stats because it proves how violent American society is and wants to remain.
Generation Kill is only in the US, nowhere else.
toeg1 2 years ago
Again, What do you have to say to the people that would have been raped and murdered, why do you feel these people should not be protected, what do you think this should happen to them?
daddyg321 2 years ago
daddy,
That's an old and worn argument. You can't stop ALL crime, not even with 800,000 people carrying concealed weapons in Florida (right now - hasn't stopped crime now has it?).
The correct solution is to reduce crime, not give people tanks to drive around. Your solution is to arm everyone to the teeth. My way is to reduce crime. Your way has one of the worst violent stats in the world, mine doesn't. Your way kills innocents much more. It's been proven. Nationmaster. Read the truth.
toeg1 2 years ago
It's old and worn out because you won't answer. Your "solution" has been proven false with every shall issue and castle doctrine passed. So answer my question state legitimate sources or continue to entertain us with this disney movie you live in.
daddyg321 2 years ago
daddy,
Having trouble undestanding English, I see. Nationmaster. It's a website. It has a lot of proof.
7 people were killed in shooting-related deaths in England and Wales for the entire month of May, 2009. 55 million people, 7 deaths. That would equate to 40 deaths in the US.
There were probably more than 1,000 in the US. The UK, and 85% of the world is safer than the US. Those are facts. Nationmaster. Read the facts. Learn English. Quit believing lies.
toeg1 2 years ago
I did check Nationmaster and all the articles it brought up had a warning about neutralality and facts being in dispute. I ask all people with brains who want the truth to check the D.O.J. ,F.B.I., N.R.A.and the related state police forces involved. what do you have to sat to all the people who were not raped or murdered because a gun protected them, why do you think these crimes should have been allow to occur?
daddyg321 2 years ago
daddy,
You just don't get it, do you? You saw the stats on how bad the US is in gun violence on Nationmaster, so you stopped looking at the truth.
I understand. The truth hurts.
You cannot possibly prevent ALL rapes by arming people. That's impossible. If you had a brain, you'd know this.
You have to stop the need for crime, not arm all the people, including all the criminals. You want every crazy person to have a gun so you have an excuse to kill them. That's sick.
toeg1 2 years ago
I really believe you need in-patient care I AN SERIOUS. I didn't even look at the numbers when it said neutralality and facts were in dispute(that means they are junk). Your statement implies we should stop trying to reduce crime since we can't prevent ALL crime(mental defect). You keep insisting everyone want to kill people(another mental defect) when most of us try to keep people from harm(delusion you know what everyone is thinking-mental defect)Most crime is not from need it is from want.
daddyg321 2 years ago
Your site proved your stats to be iffy at best lies at worst.AGAIN WHY TELL THE PEOPLE THAT DID GET SAVED WHY YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE RAPED AND MURERED. I'm sure we all want to know.
daddyg321 2 years ago
daddy,
As I have shown, the US has more crime than any other country on Earth.
1. US 11.8 million
2. UK 6.5 million
3. Germany 6.5 million
4. France 3.7 million
Your system provides for more crime than anyone. And you want to give everyone more guns.
The US has more inmates than any other country on Earth.
Yours is obviously a system of fools where crime and imprisonment is applauded. That's stupid and you should be ashamed. Rather than helping, you are creating the problem.
toeg1 2 years ago
Do we start with the stats your source says maybe false,your mental health or the victoms you are teying to create and why you think they should be raped and killed.
daddyg321 2 years ago
Daddy,
The sources are valid. The stats are used everywhere. They come from the UN and world statistical organizations responsible for the information which is used by all countries.
If you have better stats, present them.
The fact that you present nothing, refuse the truth when it is spoken, and can't grasp simple reality isn't new at all.
More crime is committed in the US NEEDLESSLY because of your method. It doesn't need to happen, but you want it to.
toeg1 2 years ago
AGAIN NATIONMASTER SAID ITS NEUTRALALITY AND FACTURALITY ARE IN DISPUTE, so you have not presented anything either, AGAIN YOU CLAIM TO READ MINDS. I always attempt to delay the low life, tell the target to leave the area, then explain to the scum that the "prize"is gone they should leave too. Mostly it works sometimes it gets ugly. PLEASE SEEK HELP.
daddyg321 2 years ago
Dudley,
You're a fool if you think that I don't understand disclaimers. This is the source:
The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
You are stupid and disingenuine. You provide nothing.
95,000 women are raped every year. That can be reduced to under 10,000, but you don't want to keep 85,000 women from being raped. You're sick.
toeg1 2 years ago
The depo. of justice, fed. beu. of inves.,state police, and N.R.A don't have disclaimers. You claim reduce crime by reduceing need who needs to rapeand how do guns rape. PLEASE SEEK HELP.
daddyg321 2 years ago
dud,
What a stupid, pathetic, little, idiot liar you are. This is from THE OFFICIAL FBI WEBSITE:
"Therefore, the FBI does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information."
You should actually look before you make stupid, pathetic lies like that you imbecile. But that would mean that you actually have a brain, which you obviously don't.
What a stupid jerk you are. Are you ten, or is that just your IQ??
toeg1 2 years ago
I've never seen a disclaimer on printed reports,and what did the stats say? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THE NON-VICTIMS? Have you gotten help yet?
daddyg321 2 years ago
dud,
You're pathetic. I have stated that up to 85,000 rapes annually could be avoided and all you worry about is lying about the FBI.
What a stupid, pathetic little man you are.
You lie. You do not provide any facts. You're stupid. You make up lies as you go along and refuse to look at meaningful, hard evidence when it's presented to you.
Go away, troll, you're no different than bldgy.
toeg1 2 years ago
Tellus how can all these rapes be avoided. You stated earlier if need was eliminated crime would stop explain the needs fixed by rape, drugs, gangs,D.U.I., vandalizing,bank robbery....
daddyg321 2 years ago
this isn't the place to explain all, but:
1. start making the laws in force stick
2. guns not in public places
3. stop so much violence on tv, movies, radio, games, etc
4. family is #1, not friends - support family in tv, movies, etc
5. take care of needy, e.g. mentally ill, homeless,
6. don't jail people for petty crimes like possession, etc.
there are a million more and these are just a quick note, but status quo doesn't work. Change is necessary
toeg1 2 years ago
So Mary who lost a hand blocking a knife aimed ather throat moments later saved by a gun is dead. Jen attacked by four guys with a gun save by my gun would be dead(criminals will still carry their illegal guns in public)(I shot no one equal force usually is all thats needed). So all these having not worked for others will work for you why? You haven't got help yet have you?
daddyg321 2 years ago
look dud,
Mary is a fantasy inside your sick head. I said that 85,000 women, or 85,000 Marys if you want, don't need to be raped each year in the US. You talk of one person, I talk of 85,000.
You come on here and lie. You're a liar. You come on here and spout stupid lies. You know nothing and yet, you spout your lies over and over.
You're nothing but a stupid, pathetic liar who knows nothing about reality. Go and lie somewhere else. I have shown your lies to the world.
toeg1 2 years ago
Mary is a woman I went to school with who was pulled outof a 7-11 by a nut job that had been mistreated by female family members all his life.Jen was a bar worker from S. Amer. was very dark but hated being confused with Africans. These people are real and as hard as it is to believe you don't know it all and can't read minds or rule the world. Have you gotten help yet?
daddyg321 2 years ago
listen pathetic liar,
After proving that you lie for any reason, I can't take your word for anything. 85,000 women are raped annually because of a system you support and applaud and even lie over.
You lie.
You have shown no remorse in lying. Apparently, that's just part of the game for you. Lie enough and people will stop thinking.
What do you say to 85,000 rape victims every year who are needlessly raped?
What sick puppy allows 85,000 rape victims and then lies???
toeg1 2 years ago
No I'm honest and I don't live in never never land and I don't think I can read minds or know the life history of every one on the netand I don't think I should run the world. It seems you haven't gotten help yet.
daddyg321 2 years ago
dud,
You're sick. Back to the neverland stupidity of yours. You have no clue about how to save 85,000 women from being raped, so you don't care.
You progun, procrime lobbyists make me sick. You've become a troll on this thread and will be treated as such from now on.
You are a liar, you have no clue, you prefer to condemn 85,000 women to rape annually due to your own ignorance, and you have no new ideas.
Just the same lies and bs.
You're a liar and a troll.
'bye.
toeg1 2 years ago
Just let us all know what video games made Capone,Machine gun Kelly, Bonnie & Clyde,and Cain and Abel so evil. You aven't gotten help yet have you?
daddyg321 2 years ago
No response?
daddyg321 2 years ago
And here we go with the uneducated trying to make direct comparisons between nations, regardless of the fact that all professionals who do this sort of thing for a living say that one cannot directly compare crime rates to reach any kind of meaningful conclusion.
bldgy 2 years ago
Our solution is to arm people for defense against the crime while we reduce the crime through practical means.
Your solution is to disarm the law abiding which has proven over and over again to be ineffective...
bldgy 2 years ago
bldgy,
No stats. NO proof. Nothing.
7 people killed in one month. about 1,000 in the US. And that's better??
You'll have a hard time fighting the stats. Nationmaster:
Murders with firearms:
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
Fourth worst in the world. These are called facts. You should learn to use them.
toeg1 2 years ago
I've already offered plenty of stats and evidence.
Do you REALLY think it makes you look intelligent to assert to everyone reading that you can't comprehend a word of my posts?
You are showing that you are too simple minded to process my posts, or to closed minded to consider them. Neither aids your credibility (if you wish to think you still have some)
bldgy 2 years ago
toeg1 2 years ago
Speaking of stupid trolls, all experts in the world agree that you cannot directly compare the crime rates of different nations and reach a meaningful conclusion. ALL EXPERTS AGREE ON THIS. There are too many variables that affect crime rates to be able to do say and say, "this one variable makes the difference." Such arguments are made by the uneducated and the simple minded.
bldgy 2 years ago
toeg1 2 years ago
No experts agree on any subject? So experts in science fields do not agree that the scientific method should be followed? Really?
Again: All experts agree that one cannot directly compare crime rates between nations and reach a meaningful conclusion. There are too many variables
Interestingly, those who conduct scientific studies in any field would agree that to reach meaningful conclusions, one must limit the number of variables. You claim to have a degree in science, yet you don't know this?
bldgy 2 years ago
All,
Again, notice the lack of focus, of argument. This is mere knee-jerk reaction to statements, not a meaningful argument.
This is the sign of a troll.
bldgy is a troll, nothing more. No argument, no stats. No rebuttal on what I've posted below, except to say some hypothetical nonsense with no proof whatsoever.
This is how a troll operates. Throughout, bldgy has proven himself to be nothing more than a troll.
toeg1 2 years ago
Yes, because stating that experts say one cannot directly compare crime rates and explaining the logic behind it is a "knee jerk reaction" to someone who mindlessly posts the same goofy, meaningless stats over and over and over....
Meanwhile, you make the "meaningful" arguments such as asserting that I am hearing voices in my head, and then you mindlessly post direct comparisons between countries over and over and over in spite of the fact nothing meaningful can be derived from them...
bldgy 2 years ago