Gun control working!

[Grumblenuts]

No, are you?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Don't wanna read, suit yourself as I'm sure you always do anyway.

 

[bgrouse]

No, are you?

No, I don't think your zero-content posts lead anyone to water, either.

So why do you keep posting them instead of addressing fact-based arguments?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You flatter yourself. Goodbye,... and, you're welcome!

 

[Rustic]

What exactly is incorrect? If you can't state that with specificity, all you've done is present a logical fallacy. That you don't like the newspaper in which statistics appear is irrelevant.

Oh, I don't think you want to bore the readers with a review of the tons already presented. But, no worries, bgrouse can help you:

"It looks like a section of the chart on page 17, except displayed as a rate (instead of a number), focusing on data from a shorter time period than is available in the official chart, and with an indicator line displayed to show the handgun ban."

Got it? No? Alright, see it "looks like" the chart "except" it's clearly not. A section "displayed as a rate" that's actually displayed as simply the raw numbers in the genuine, original chart. See the numbers were so small Lott feared everyone would just laugh if he used those. He used the per million data to dazzle everyone with the govt's own pointless "rate" BS so none would now notice the loss of a zero value x-axis. The time frame, not simply "shorter", two thirds chopped off. The mild variations then stretched vertically to appear significant. Yes, (some of) the same data, but corrupted in its presentation to tell a different tale. A bogus one.

Once more, >Here< is the original. Now read the section "1.3 OFFENCES RECORDED AS HOMICIDE" - the expert description beginning on page 16 and surrounding the chart on page 17. Also, don't fail to notice how the exact opposite of your and Mr. Lott's want is what they conclude from the data.

An armed Society is a polite society… Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[bgrouse]

You flatter yourself. Goodbye,... and, you're welcome!

You want me to prove a statistic I posted?

I assume not, given you, like the bullshitting coward you are, immediately followed up with "Goodbye."

 

[candycorn]

Look no further than London, England, where civilian firearm ownership is de facto banned. Heck, their dear leader had good common sense to ban not only firearms, but sharp, pointy objects as well.

Sorry, you just can't argue the good results, right?

Through March of 2018:

• The murder rate is up 44 percent over the last twelve months
• Violent crime is up 33% over the preceding twelve months
• Home robbery is also up, by a third
• Rape is up 18 percent

Guess those 100lb English ladies are finding the notion of fighting off a 250lb rapist with their fists to be a bit of a sticky wicket???

But hey, but at least there's no gun or knife crime, right?

• Knife crime up 21 percent
• Shootings up 23 percent from the previous year
• More

Hmm...

Well, we all know the only reason London sees this crime is because of all the lax gun laws in nearly Indiana...

Oh, wait. Crap. Never mind.

Hmms, so before last year England didn't have strict gun control? Your stats, which you didn't source btw all speak about an increase this year. How does that help your argument?

They added new laws, try to keep up.

Sure, what laws? How do they correlate to the statistics put up? How do they stack up against the rates in the US and why pick only the stats for a city and not for England? Oh and what's the source of these statistics. See one can prove anything by sufficiently cherry picking statistics, or for that matter lie about them by not sourcing.

London is having a crime wave.
The conservatives are happy about it.
What’s not to understand.

 

[Rustic]

Look no further than London, England, where civilian firearm ownership is de facto banned. Heck, their dear leader had good common sense to ban not only firearms, but sharp, pointy objects as well.

Sorry, you just can't argue the good results, right?

Through March of 2018:

• The murder rate is up 44 percent over the last twelve months
• Violent crime is up 33% over the preceding twelve months
• Home robbery is also up, by a third
• Rape is up 18 percent

Guess those 100lb English ladies are finding the notion of fighting off a 250lb rapist with their fists to be a bit of a sticky wicket???

But hey, but at least there's no gun or knife crime, right?

• Knife crime up 21 percent
• Shootings up 23 percent from the previous year
• More

Hmm...

Well, we all know the only reason London sees this crime is because of all the lax gun laws in nearly Indiana...

Oh, wait. Crap. Never mind.

Hmms, so before last year England didn't have strict gun control? Your stats, which you didn't source btw all speak about an increase this year. How does that help your argument?

They added new laws, try to keep up.

Sure, what laws? How do they correlate to the statistics put up? How do they stack up against the rates in the US and why pick only the stats for a city and not for England? Oh and what's the source of these statistics. See one can prove anything by sufficiently cherry picking statistics, or for that matter lie about them by not sourcing.

London is having a crime wave.
The conservatives are happy about it.
What’s not to understand.

Lol
Karma is a bitch, Unarmed people are easy targets. Criminals realize this, progressives don’t because they’re fucked in the head.

 

[bgrouse]

Look no further than London, England, where civilian firearm ownership is de facto banned. Heck, their dear leader had good common sense to ban not only firearms, but sharp, pointy objects as well.

Sorry, you just can't argue the good results, right?

Through March of 2018:

• The murder rate is up 44 percent over the last twelve months
• Violent crime is up 33% over the preceding twelve months
• Home robbery is also up, by a third
• Rape is up 18 percent

Guess those 100lb English ladies are finding the notion of fighting off a 250lb rapist with their fists to be a bit of a sticky wicket???

But hey, but at least there's no gun or knife crime, right?

• Knife crime up 21 percent
• Shootings up 23 percent from the previous year
• More

Hmm...

Well, we all know the only reason London sees this crime is because of all the lax gun laws in nearly Indiana...

Oh, wait. Crap. Never mind.

Hmms, so before last year England didn't have strict gun control? Your stats, which you didn't source btw all speak about an increase this year. How does that help your argument?

They added new laws, try to keep up.

Sure, what laws? How do they correlate to the statistics put up? How do they stack up against the rates in the US and why pick only the stats for a city and not for England? Oh and what's the source of these statistics. See one can prove anything by sufficiently cherry picking statistics, or for that matter lie about them by not sourcing.

London is having a crime wave.
The conservatives are happy about it.
What’s not to understand.

Lol
Karma is a bitch, Unarmed people are easy targets.

Liberals who think the police will protect them doubly so. Yes, reach for your cell and dial 911 while the mugger carves up your liver.

 

[Rustic]

Hmms, so before last year England didn't have strict gun control? Your stats, which you didn't source btw all speak about an increase this year. How does that help your argument?

They added new laws, try to keep up.

Sure, what laws? How do they correlate to the statistics put up? How do they stack up against the rates in the US and why pick only the stats for a city and not for England? Oh and what's the source of these statistics. See one can prove anything by sufficiently cherry picking statistics, or for that matter lie about them by not sourcing.

London is having a crime wave.
The conservatives are happy about it.
What’s not to understand.

Lol
Karma is a bitch, Unarmed people are easy targets.

Liberals who think the police will protect them doubly so. Yes, reach for your cell and dial 911 while the mugger carves up your liver.

Want something done right... do it yourself.
That used to be America’s motto... We’re much closer to France’s... you know… I surrender

 

[eflatminor]

What exactly is incorrect? If you can't state that with specificity, all you've done is present a logical fallacy. That you don't like the newspaper in which statistics appear is irrelevant.

Oh, I don't think you want to bore the readers with a review of the tons already presented. But, no worries, bgrouse can help you:

"It looks like a section of the chart on page 17, except displayed as a rate (instead of a number), focusing on data from a shorter time period than is available in the official chart, and with an indicator line displayed to show the handgun ban."

Got it? No? Alright, see it "looks like" the chart "except" it's clearly not. A section "displayed as a rate" that's actually displayed as simply the raw numbers in the genuine, original chart. See the numbers were so small Lott feared everyone would just laugh if he used those. He used the per million data to dazzle everyone with the govt's own pointless "rate" BS so none would now notice the loss of a zero value x-axis. The time frame, not simply "shorter", two thirds chopped off. The mild variations then stretched vertically to appear significant. Yes, (some of) the same data, but corrupted in its presentation to tell a different tale. A bogus one.

Once more, >Here< is the original. Now read the section "1.3 OFFENCES RECORDED AS HOMICIDE" - the expert description beginning on page 16 and surrounding the chart on page 17. Also, don't fail to notice how the exact opposite of your and Mr. Lott's want is what they conclude from the data.

Exact opposite, huh? Okay, what are the real numbers? Be specific now.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What exactly is incorrect? If you can't state that with specificity, all you've done is present a logical fallacy. That you don't like the newspaper in which statistics appear is irrelevant.

Oh, I don't think you want to bore the readers with a review of the tons already presented. But, no worries, bgrouse can help you:

"It looks like a section of the chart on page 17, except displayed as a rate (instead of a number), focusing on data from a shorter time period than is available in the official chart, and with an indicator line displayed to show the handgun ban."

Got it? No? Alright, see it "looks like" the chart "except" it's clearly not. A section "displayed as a rate" that's actually displayed as simply the raw numbers in the genuine, original chart. See the numbers were so small Lott feared everyone would just laugh if he used those. He used the per million data to dazzle everyone with the govt's own pointless "rate" BS so none would now notice the loss of a zero value x-axis. The time frame, not simply "shorter", two thirds chopped off. The mild variations then stretched vertically to appear significant. Yes, (some of) the same data, but corrupted in its presentation to tell a different tale. A bogus one.

Once more, >Here< is the original. Now read the section "1.3 OFFENCES RECORDED AS HOMICIDE" - the expert description beginning on page 16 and surrounding the chart on page 17. Also, don't fail to notice how the exact opposite of your and Mr. Lott's want is what they conclude from the data.

An armed Society is a polite society… Buy more guns and ammo...

Actually, what they concluded from the data is that doesn't work. Repeat> from the data <the evidence. At best it makes no difference. No matter how long or much you guffaw or repeat baseless claims to the contrary. Of course scientific findings ("proof") is always reassuring, but common sense is actually more than sufficient. Irrational fear is what makes people stupid and gullible. That's where your ilk comes in. Trolling for suckers and dollars. Hey, under the circumstances who can blame ya? It's the Christian thing to do!

 

[2aguy]

Look no further than London, England, where civilian firearm ownership is de facto banned. Heck, their dear leader had good common sense to ban not only firearms, but sharp, pointy objects as well.

Sorry, you just can't argue the good results, right?

Through March of 2018:

• The murder rate is up 44 percent over the last twelve months
• Violent crime is up 33% over the preceding twelve months
• Home robbery is also up, by a third
• Rape is up 18 percent

Guess those 100lb English ladies are finding the notion of fighting off a 250lb rapist with their fists to be a bit of a sticky wicket???

But hey, but at least there's no gun or knife crime, right?

• Knife crime up 21 percent
• Shootings up 23 percent from the previous year
• More

Hmm...

Well, we all know the only reason London sees this crime is because of all the lax gun laws in nearly Indiana...

Oh, wait. Crap. Never mind.

Hmms, so before last year England didn't have strict gun control? Your stats, which you didn't source btw all speak about an increase this year. How does that help your argument?

They added new laws, try to keep up.

Sure, what laws? How do they correlate to the statistics put up? How do they stack up against the rates in the US and why pick only the stats for a city and not for England? Oh and what's the source of these statistics. See one can prove anything by sufficiently cherry picking statistics, or for that matter lie about them by not sourcing.

London is having a crime wave.
The conservatives are happy about it.
What’s not to understand.

They were promised that gun crime would go down, and that violent crime would go down, if only they gave up the means to protect themselves. After all, the British bobbies would keep them safe......and they gave up their guns, and now the gun crime rate keeps going up, the violent crime rate keeps going up, and rape gangs run around abusing teenage girls while the bobbies and social welfare workers hide so they can't be called islamaphobic....and the foreign drug gangs are shooting and stabbing people, and the fatherless boys are stabbing and shooting each other....

Meanwhile, in the United States, more Americans now own and carry guns.....

Our gun murder rate went down 49%.

Our gun crime rate went down 75%.

Our violent crime rate went down 72%.

Those are facts....not opinions....

 

[Grumblenuts]

...and back from fantasy land, sorry 'bout ^that folks. Haha, shameless advertising, gotta love it. Next, we go to the UK where Mr. Simon Crump is standing by to answer the question Just how does your average Britisher feel about owning guns anyway?... Wait, what's that?... Oh, terribly sorry folks... Seems we let the advertising run far too long and missed most of the interview. No worries though. We can soon supply a >LINK< to the full transcript. K, meanwhile, take it away Simon!

Guns are not cool. They're not fun toys to have, and it doesn't make society safer to have lots of them in circulation. Most tellingly, our police are quite happy with a situation where even they are not armed; a 2006 survey of their members by the Police Federation of England and Wales found that 82 percent of respondents were opposed to the routine arming of police officers. If the police don't think they need guns, then why would anyone else?

And it is that question that reveals the historical difference between the U.K. and the U.S. on this issue. When gun lobbyists in the U.S. cite the Constitution, they tell us that the right to bear arms exists so that the people can defend themselves from an oppressive state, but when the Metropolitan Police were formed in London in 1829, they went for the opposite approach and decided that the police should not be armed in order to assert the principle that they maintained order by consent rather than by force. It may be a philosophical point, but it possibly helps to explain the gulf in gun attitudes between Britain and the U.S.

 

[bgrouse]

...and back from fantasy land, sorry 'bout ^that folks. Haha, shameless advertising, gotta love it. Next, we go to the UK where Mr. Simon Crump is standing by to answer the question Just how does your average Britisher feel about owning guns anyway?... Wait, what's that?... Oh, terribly sorry folks... Seems we let the advertising run far too long and missed most of the interview. No worries though. We can soon supply a >LINK< to the full transcript. K, meanwhile, take it away Simon!

Guns are not cool. They're not fun toys to have, and it doesn't make society safer to have lots of them in circulation. Most tellingly, our police are quite happy with a situation where even they are not armed; a 2006 survey of their members by the Police Federation of England and Wales found that 82 percent of respondents were opposed to the routine arming of police officers. If the police don't think they need guns, then why would anyone else?

And it is that question that reveals the historical difference between the U.K. and the U.S. on this issue. When gun lobbyists in the U.S. cite the Constitution, they tell us that the right to bear arms exists so that the people can defend themselves from an oppressive state, but when the Metropolitan Police were formed in London in 1829, they went for the opposite approach and decided that the police should not be armed in order to assert the principle that they maintained order by consent rather than by force. It may be a philosophical point, but it possibly helps to explain the gulf in gun attitudes between Britain and the U.S.

Just what the fuck are you going on about you stupid loser?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wow, musta struck annoyv!

 

[bgrouse]

Wow, musta struck annoyv!

Hard to tell, being unable to understand WTF you're going on about and all.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Pro tip: Everything really isn't about you!

 

[bgrouse]

Pro tip: Everything really isn't about you!

I don't think I'm the only one here who thinks you're a clueless, zero-content-posting loser.