If you guys who are afraid want to curl up in a fetal ball and suck your thumb while a maniac shoots you to death, feel free. But don't go making rules for those of us who know better.
I think I'll stop talking and start taking action. I just now joined the NRA for the first time.
Topic: Gun free zone - page 15. (Read 21968 times)
The real statistics show that US crime rate is twice higher than UK's one:
2011 UK stats as per US standards defined here: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm
And US definitions here: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/offenses.cfm
Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/rec-crime-2003-2012
Roberry: 67920
Rape: 13232
Murder: 550
Aggravated assault: 17772
Total: 99474
2011 UK Population 626410000
Outcome is: 158 per 100,000
USA is 386.3 per 100,000
source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
2011 UK stats as per US standards defined here: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm
And US definitions here: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/offenses.cfm
Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/rec-crime-2003-2012
Roberry: 67920
Rape: 13232
Murder: 550
Aggravated assault: 17772
Total: 99474
2011 UK Population 626410000
Outcome is: 158 per 100,000
USA is 386.3 per 100,000
source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
You're an idiot.
No, seriously. A fucking moron.
No, seriously. A fucking moron.
This is perhaps you after being caught once more lying and doctoring data.
Let's look at that table, shall we? Notice the footnote?
"1 See note at bottom of page 3."
Well, let's flip back to page three, shall we?
Here's the note (feel free to waste your time and upload an image of it):
"No injury includes harassment, possession of weapons, other offences against children and common assault, although some offences counted in more serious violence may also include no injury, e.g. threats to murder."
"1 See note at bottom of page 3."
Well, let's flip back to page three, shall we?
Here's the note (feel free to waste your time and upload an image of it):
"No injury includes harassment, possession of weapons, other offences against children and common assault, although some offences counted in more serious violence may also include no injury, e.g. threats to murder."
So, what this have anything to do with '2,000 per 100,000 people'? Where is the 'people'?
So 51% of the crimes were common assault or possession, or some such.
Yes, so... I am not contesting that. I am contesting that you were doctoring '2,000 per 100,000 people'
The other 49% (2009 incidents per 100 000, to be precise) were more serious violent crimes, such as murder threats, aggravated assault, muggings, and actual murder.
Precise in accordance with what? Where is your reference? There is nothing like that in the survey.
No matter how much bullshit you sling, you can't make the truth into anything but the truth.
You are indeed a compulsive liar.
Contact Gun Owners of America to see if they will accept Bitcoin contributions:
http://www.gunowners.org/j-contribute.htm
While the NRA was silent, the GOA rep on CNN Piers Morgan show had the best anti-ban arguments I've seen:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/19/pmt-ct-shooting-larry-pratt-heated-gun-debtae.cnn
He is actually the only one I've seen on TV who correctly answered the popular gun-ban question: "Give me one, JUST ONE, good reason why anyone needs an 'assault rifle' with a high-capacity magazine?"
http://www.gunowners.org/j-contribute.htm
While the NRA was silent, the GOA rep on CNN Piers Morgan show had the best anti-ban arguments I've seen:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/19/pmt-ct-shooting-larry-pratt-heated-gun-debtae.cnn
He is actually the only one I've seen on TV who correctly answered the popular gun-ban question: "Give me one, JUST ONE, good reason why anyone needs an 'assault rifle' with a high-capacity magazine?"
I'd rather not sit through the whole thing... What was the answer given?
I'm barely getting involved in these stupid debates any more, but I would only feel comfortable with an assault weapons ban if the police and army couldn't use them either, however as has been shown by the state, they want everyone to not have them but themselves. This is actually a much wider topic of discussion than you might think especially if you look at the situation with Nuclear Weapons for example, all the superpowers are calling for disarmament and a ban, but do they actually do it? Of course not, I don't want to see this happen but I bet you if there was any sort of armed and organised rebellion in modern countries with modern fire power they wouldn't hesitate to use them on anyone they think is a threat.
No one does need assault rifles, it's true, governments don't need them either, but they still cling to them and they immediately attack anyone else who 'might' have them and that's what this is really all about in my view, they are doing nothing but being the opportunistic cunts and taking advantage of the situation just like with 9/11.
In some schools they do have airport style security. I can't imagine it does wonders for creating a welcoming learning environment.
Oh, they learn to be good little worker drones real fine. Shut-up and submit.
Contact Gun Owners of America to see if they will accept Bitcoin contributions:
http://www.gunowners.org/j-contribute.htm
While the NRA was silent, the GOA rep on CNN Piers Morgan show had the best anti-ban arguments I've seen:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/19/pmt-ct-shooting-larry-pratt-heated-gun-debtae.cnn
He is actually the only one I've seen on TV who correctly answered the popular gun-ban question: "Give me one, JUST ONE, good reason why anyone needs an 'assault rifle' with a high-capacity magazine?"
http://www.gunowners.org/j-contribute.htm
While the NRA was silent, the GOA rep on CNN Piers Morgan show had the best anti-ban arguments I've seen:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/19/pmt-ct-shooting-larry-pratt-heated-gun-debtae.cnn
He is actually the only one I've seen on TV who correctly answered the popular gun-ban question: "Give me one, JUST ONE, good reason why anyone needs an 'assault rifle' with a high-capacity magazine?"
I'd rather not sit through the whole thing... What was the answer given?
Contact Gun Owners of America to see if they will accept Bitcoin contributions:
http://www.gunowners.org/j-contribute.htm
While the NRA was silent, the GOA rep on CNN Piers Morgan show had the best anti-ban arguments I've seen:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/19/pmt-ct-shooting-larry-pratt-heated-gun-debtae.cnn
He is actually the only one I've seen on TV who correctly answered the popular gun-ban question: "Give me one, JUST ONE, good reason why anyone needs an 'assault rifle' with a high-capacity magazine?"
http://www.gunowners.org/j-contribute.htm
While the NRA was silent, the GOA rep on CNN Piers Morgan show had the best anti-ban arguments I've seen:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/19/pmt-ct-shooting-larry-pratt-heated-gun-debtae.cnn
He is actually the only one I've seen on TV who correctly answered the popular gun-ban question: "Give me one, JUST ONE, good reason why anyone needs an 'assault rifle' with a high-capacity magazine?"
This is LYING.
Thank you for finally admitting it.
Ahh, here we go. On the top of page 6, there's a table which indicates that 51% of the crimes were "less serious," things like simple assault, that sort of thing. So it's not so bad, I guess. Only about 2,000 per 100,000 people.
Less serious compare to what? You were pointed out that you're using wrong statistics... Since you keep pushing for it.
This is LYING.
Ahh, here we go. On the top of page 6, there's a table which indicates that 51% of the crimes were "less serious," things like simple assault, that sort of thing. So it's not so bad, I guess. Only about 2,000 per 100,000 people.
There is not any data in the table which you suggested above:
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
You are doctoring the '2,000 per 100,000 people' data.
Did you realize the 923,084 number? Did you realize that is not the total number of victims, but the total number of violent actions committed against a person?
No, seriously. A fucking moron.
Let's look at that table, shall we? Notice the footnote?
"1 See note at bottom of page 3."
Well, let's flip back to page three, shall we?
Here's the note (feel free to waste your time and upload an image of it):
"No injury includes harassment, possession of weapons, other offences against children and common assault, although some offences counted in more serious violence may also include no injury, e.g. threats to murder."
So 51% of the crimes were common assault or possession, or some such. The other 49% (2009 incidents per 100 000, to be precise) were more serious violent crimes, such as murder threats, aggravated assault, muggings, and actual murder.
No matter how much bullshit you sling, you can't make the truth into anything but the truth.
Ahh, here we go. On the top of page 6, there's a table which indicates that 51% of the crimes were "less serious," things like simple assault, that sort of thing. So it's not so bad, I guess. Only about 2,000 per 100,000 people.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
You are doctoring the '2,000 per 100,000 people' data.
Did you realize the 923,084 number? Did you realize that is not the total number of victims, but the total number of violent actions committed against a person?
Found some stats that might be enlightening...
US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm )
UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )
US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm )
UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )
Notice that Myrkul did not provided any explanation for the statistics he posted. Myrkul also forged the second statistic. The second reference do not contain the data which he published.
Mykul doctored the evidence.
Taking to simply lying now, are we?
Page 6, just under that table I mentioned:
Quote
Risk of becoming a victim
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
Tell me, what percentage of 100000 is 4100?
Wrong numbers. Because you don't understand what numbers means.
USA - Murder & non negligent manslaughter, Forcible rape, Robbery, Aggravated assault
UK - above and ALL assaults
Myrkul has never let data get in his way of portraying things the way he wants them to be.
Ahh, here we go. On the top of page 6, there's a table which indicates that 51% of the crimes were "less serious," things like simple assault, that sort of thing. So it's not so bad, I guess. Only about 2,000 per 100,000 people.
Taking to simply lying now, are we?
Page 6, just under that table I mentioned:
Tell me, what percentage of 100000 is 4100?
Page 6, just under that table I mentioned:
Quote
Risk of becoming a victim
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
Tell me, what percentage of 100000 is 4100?
That is not what you proposed. Let's review:
'UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens'
That means, a rate of 4,100 violent crimes per 100,000 citizens.
Now, to justify the doctored data, you are presenting another statistic, which express another result:
'The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.'
Quote
The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent. According to the 2002/03 BCS, young men aged 16 to 24 were most at risk, with 15 per cent experiencing violence in the recall period (Table 1b and Simmons and Dodd, 2003)
That means the RISK (not the rate) of a violent crime to happen against a citizen during a whole year is 4.1%! That has nothing to do with the RATE (not risk) of violent crimes per citizen.
Moreover, this is above the table you suggested:
Quote
Table 1b Risk of becoming a victim of violent crime, year ending Dec 2003 BCS interviews
So, the calculation is based on the number of people interviewed, not on the UK total population number.
Found some stats that might be enlightening...
US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm )
UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )
US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm )
UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )
Notice that Myrkul did not provided any explanation for the statistics he posted. Myrkul also forged the second statistic. The second reference do not contain the data which he published.
Mykul doctored the evidence.
Taking to simply lying now, are we?
Page 6, just under that table I mentioned:
Quote
Risk of becoming a victim
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
Tell me, what percentage of 100000 is 4100?
Wrong numbers. Because you don't understand what numbers means.
USA - Murder & non negligent manslaughter, Forcible rape, Robbery, Aggravated assault
UK - above and ALL assaults
Myrkul has never let data get in his way of portraying things the way he wants them to be.
Found some stats that might be enlightening...
US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm )
UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )
US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm )
UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )
Notice that Myrkul did not provided any explanation for the statistics he posted. Myrkul also forged the second statistic. The second reference do not contain the data which he published.
Mykul doctored the evidence.
Taking to simply lying now, are we?
Page 6, just under that table I mentioned:
Quote
Risk of becoming a victim
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
Tell me, what percentage of 100000 is 4100?
Wrong numbers. Because you don't understand what numbers means.
USA - Murder & non negligent manslaughter, Forcible rape, Robbery, Aggravated assault
UK - above and ALL assaults
myrkul, your forgetting the statistics about Americans and math.
They can't cypher them percent numbers.
They can't cypher them percent numbers.
Found some stats that might be enlightening...
US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm )
UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )
US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm )
UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )
Notice that Myrkul did not provided any explanation for the statistics he posted. Myrkul also forged the second statistic. The second reference do not contain the data which he published.
Mykul doctored the evidence.
Taking to simply lying now, are we?
Page 6, just under that table I mentioned:
Quote
Risk of becoming a victim
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
Tell me, what percentage of 100000 is 4100?
Jump to: