Political Crossfire Forums

[Lucky Luke]

JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Once again, grammar dictates the usage of the word "lies" not "lie", it is plural because you had more than one.

Really? Would you like to point them out to me JackarooSundown?



Lets start with every time you give us 'the facts'

Uh-oh! The lying rate just went up .00245% in Scotland!

Where did I lie about the murder rate in Scotland JackarooSundown?

:-D
:-D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote:

Then HOW do you justify your lack of prepardness for a criminal attack, and WHY do you keep talking about how there is no reason to fear where you are!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Its a good thing humans dont need logic to live, because you would have run out a loooooong time ago

:td:
:td:

I don't fear minor assaults, disturbances, burglaries and petty thefts, I don't worry about them, I live my life instead.

Now I worry very much getting killed and that is not likely to happen to me, two to three times less likely than to you with all your guns and all your preparedness JackarooSundown.

Who lives safer, who lives in fear JackarooSundown?

I live safer and you live in fear, you are very welcome to your guns they are making your life a misery.

:-D
:-D

I suppose it would be wasting my time to explain the "third cause fallacy" to you?

Yes.

:-D
:-D

Because you don't want to hear why you're wrong, because you already know why your argument is disengenuous, or because your comprehension of english grammar isn't adequate to understand my query?

Because I don't do intellectual debate or debate about the art of debating, I do gun control debate. I am not part of your elite.

:-D
:-D

Then let me point it out to you less subtly:

The murder rate is highest in states with lots of poor people and gang activity. The murder rate is incredibly high in the cities, where many people, especially gangs, congregate. Should we ban cities?

Right-to-carry laws are almost universal in the U.S. now, but gun deaths have not gone up across the board. In fact, the statistics are so wildly scattered that one might logically consider that the ability of lawful citizens to lawfully own and carry handguns is not a variable that affects murder rates. In fact, if we cross reference the poverty rates for US states with the murder rates, we get, not a scattered bunch of data points, but ::gasp::, a correlation.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/table2.htm

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169

Now, unfortunately, as I have what we Americans like to call a "job," I cannot pull together a spreadsheet and a graph for you. But rest assured, after I come home from watching the Houston Astros pummel the Reds tonight, I will make you look even more dumb.

:wink:
:wink:

[Lucky Luke]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Or, I could be dishonest like you and post these statistics:

The murder rate in Iowa in 2005 was 1.6 per 100,000.

Source.

In Iowa, it is legal to buy shotguns and rifles without a background check or registration. You do not have to register even handguns in Iowa. At the age of 18, any person of sound mental health with a clean criminal record can register for a concealed carry handgun license and carry it anywhere within the state.

Source.

Clearly, the ability of Iowans to defend themselves at any time leads to the low murder rate.

:P
:P

Iowa
Persons per square mile, 2000 52.4
Population 2,926,324
Murder rate per 100,000 1.6

England and Wales
Persons per square mile, 2001 892.5
Population 52,041,916
Murder rate 200/2001 per 100,000 1.51

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.uklocalpop.html

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb103.pdf

What on earth is wrong with Iowa, how come such a deserted state gets a so high murder rate The Central Scrutinizer?

My home city Aberdeen and the capital of Scotland, Edinburgh have a lower murder rate than the state of Iowa.

Scotland has the murder capital of western Europe as its second city, what's Iowa excuse?
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

JackarooSundown wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Or, I could be dishonest like you and post these statistics:

The murder rate in Iowa in 2005 was 1.6 per 100,000.

Source.

In Iowa, it is legal to buy shotguns and rifles without a background check or registration. You do not have to register even handguns in Iowa. At the age of 18, any person of sound mental health with a clean criminal record can register for a concealed carry handgun license and carry it anywhere within the state.

Source.

Clearly, the ability of Iowans to defend themselves at any time leads to the low murder rate.

:P
:P

:tu: "So many people in Iowa live in fear!" "Unlike ME!"

:-D
:-D

My busy city has a lower murder rate than Iowa!

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

drBo wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: drBo wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: drBo wrote:


The difference between our violent culture and yours is that the law-abiding here are evenly matched against possible assailants.

You still don't get my point either. I agree that there is a higher crime rate PER 100,000 OF POPULATION here. Im trying to show you one possible reason why. We have a BIGGER POPULATION, meaning greater diversity of people and income inequality, etc. That means that there are more people to possibly commit the crimes here than there are in the small area of Scotland.

They clearly are not DrBo, your rate is insane and going up! The situation is closed to get out of control, again.

No, DrBo because it is measured in crime rates per 100,000. Scotland is in fact less rich than America, per capita of course.

Anyway Scotland is a lot more violent and has a higher rate than the rest of the EU, can you understand this concept DrBo or would you like to take the crime rates per 100,000 of the whole of the EU with its larger population than the US?

:-D
:-D

Then it s*cks to be defenseless like you over there across the pond. At least I have a say as to whether or not I get killed in a fetal position or go down fighting. (Most likely it will be the other guy who has to "go down fighting", however)

This is not what the FBI stats are telling us DrBo, you should have a look at the facts one day.

If guns were preventing happening, America would have the lowest rate in the democratic western world, it has the highest.

:-D
:-D
:-D
:-D

They're not preventing all , just like your gun control laws aren't preventing all either. They do prevent though. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone in the world was nice, then we could all live happy and blissfully ignorant like you over in the most violent country in Western Europe.

We CAN defend ourselves here, unlike in the UK where you need to be as physically strong as your attacker to stand a chance.

We are no more strong than you are, we have the same level of crime and yet your murder rate is insane, what is the problem DrBo, can't you defend yourself against murder?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote:

Then HOW do you justify your lack of prepardness for a criminal attack, and WHY do you keep talking about how there is no reason to fear where you are!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Its a good thing humans dont need logic to live, because you would have run out a loooooong time ago

:td:
:td:

I don't fear minor assaults, disturbances, burglaries and petty thefts, I don't worry about them, I live my life instead.

Now I worry very much getting killed and that is not likely to happen to me, two to three times less likely than to you with all your guns and all your preparedness JackarooSundown.

Who lives safer, who lives in fear JackarooSundown?

I live safer and you live in fear, you are very welcome to your guns they are making your life a misery.

:-D
:-D

I suppose it would be wasting my time to explain the "third cause fallacy" to you?

Yes.

:-D
:-D

Because you don't want to hear why you're wrong, because you already know why your argument is disengenuous, or because your comprehension of english grammar isn't adequate to understand my query?

Because I don't do intellectual debate or debate about the art of debating, I do gun control debate. I am not part of your elite.

:-D
:-D

Then let me point it out to you less subtly:

The murder rate is highest in states with lots of poor people and gang activity. The murder rate is incredibly high in the cities, where many people, especially gangs, congregate. Should we ban cities?

Right-to-carry laws are almost universal in the U.S. now, but gun deaths have not gone up across the board. In fact, the statistics are so wildly scattered that one might logically consider that the ability of lawful citizens to lawfully own and carry handguns is not a variable that affects murder rates. In fact, if we cross reference the poverty rates for US states with the murder rates, we get, not a scattered bunch of data points, but ::gasp::, a correlation.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/table2.htm

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169

Now, unfortunately, as I have what we Americans like to call a "job," I cannot pull together a spreadsheet and a graph for you. But rest assured, after I come home from watching the Houston Astros pummel the Reds tonight, I will make you look even more dumb.

:wink:
:wink:

No, point out to me where I was dishonest and where I lied The Central Scrutinizer, that would be a start of an honest debate if not an intellectual one.

:-D
:-D

[thintheherd]

You guys are feeding the troll. *tsk *tsk

:lol:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote:

Then HOW do you justify your lack of prepardness for a criminal attack, and WHY do you keep talking about how there is no reason to fear where you are!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Its a good thing humans dont need logic to live, because you would have run out a loooooong time ago

:td:
:td:

I don't fear minor assaults, disturbances, burglaries and petty thefts, I don't worry about them, I live my life instead.

Now I worry very much getting killed and that is not likely to happen to me, two to three times less likely than to you with all your guns and all your preparedness JackarooSundown.

Who lives safer, who lives in fear JackarooSundown?

I live safer and you live in fear, you are very welcome to your guns they are making your life a misery.

:-D
:-D

I suppose it would be wasting my time to explain the "third cause fallacy" to you?

Yes.

:-D
:-D

Because you don't want to hear why you're wrong, because you already know why your argument is disengenuous, or because your comprehension of english grammar isn't adequate to understand my query?

Because I don't do intellectual debate or debate about the art of debating, I do gun control debate. I am not part of your elite.

:-D
:-D

Then let me point it out to you less subtly:

The murder rate is highest in states with lots of poor people and gang activity. The murder rate is incredibly high in the cities, where many people, especially gangs, congregate. Should we ban cities?

Right-to-carry laws are almost universal in the U.S. now, but gun deaths have not gone up across the board. In fact, the statistics are so wildly scattered that one might logically consider that the ability of lawful citizens to lawfully own and carry handguns is not a variable that affects murder rates. In fact, if we cross reference the poverty rates for US states with the murder rates, we get, not a scattered bunch of data points, but ::gasp::, a correlation.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/table2.htm

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169

Now, unfortunately, as I have what we Americans like to call a "job," I cannot pull together a spreadsheet and a graph for you. But rest assured, after I come home from watching the Houston Astros pummel the Reds tonight, I will make you look even more dumb.

:wink:
:wink:

No, point out to me where I was dishonest and where I lied The Central Scrutinizer, that would be a start of an honest debate if not an intellectual one.

:-D
:-D

Ok, so do you know over there in Europe that whenever sales of ice cream go up, the murder rate goes up? Clearly we need to stop the sale of ice cream, as it causes murders.

This kind of reasoning is specious at best, because no reasonable person would ever think that ice cream casuses murders. But what does happen is that summer comes along. During summer, for whatever reason you want to accept, be it practical (younger people not in school, more people on vacation, more people outside and active) or Shakespearean (the blood is hot in summer), the murder rate goes up. Also, in summer, because it is hot, the consumption of ice cream goes up. Here is my point: correlation is not causation. Just because America has more guns than Europe and a higher murder rate than Europe does not mean that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are somehow "responsible."

Furthermore, if you look across the United States, stricter gun control does not mean lower rates of violence. The highest rates of violence occur in the large cities (Detroit has a staggering 39 murders per 100,000--and Scotland is violent :lol: ) with large poor populations. Furthermore, if you compare the states with the highest murder rates, they are often states with high rates of poverty--Mississippi, Lousiana, Maryland (thanks mostly to the D.C. metro area), New Mexico, Nevada... just take a look at the link I provided, look at the statistics, and pop off some neurons. This isn't rocket science. Within America, there is little to no correlation between high rates of violence and the legal accessibility of guns. There is a massive correlation between poverty and violence. So maybe the solution isn't to control the guns, which as others have pointed out bars law-abiding citizens, not criminals, from access to guns. Maybe the solution is to end the cycle of inescapable poverty and ethnic ghettos. That might be a little left-wing for this forum; I don't know. But getting rid of guns is a stupid answer. Europe is not America is not Europe. While socialism and high tax rates might work for Sweden, the UK, or France, it won't work for the United States. Kind of how freedom and democracy seem to fail to take root in the middle east. But that's another issue.

The bottom line is this: gun-control laws are the first step to a police state. The goal of all gun control legislation is to create a state where no one has access to guns but the police--and therein the people become powerless. If you like that, then fine, be on your merry and enjoy the fruits of your ideology. But I like my country free, and a country can only be free if its government fears its people, not if the people fear their government.

[Lucky Luke]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Ok, so do you know over there in Europe that whenever sales of ice cream go up, the murder rate goes up? Clearly we need to stop the sale of ice cream, as it causes murders.

This kind of reasoning is specious at best, because no reasonable person would ever think that ice cream casuses murders. But what does happen is that summer comes along. During summer, for whatever reason you want to accept, be it practical (younger people not in school, more people on vacation, more people outside and active) or Shakespearean (the blood is hot in summer), the murder rate goes up. Also, in summer, because it is hot, the consumption of ice cream goes up. Here is my point: correlation is not causation. Just because America has more guns than Europe and a higher murder rate than Europe does not mean that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are somehow "responsible."

Furthermore, if you look across the United States, stricter gun control does not mean lower rates of violence. The highest rates of violence occur in the large cities (Detroit has a staggering 39 murders per 100,000--and Scotland is violent :lol: ) with large poor populations. Furthermore, if you compare the states with the highest murder rates, they are often states with high rates of poverty--Mississippi, Lousiana, Maryland (thanks mostly to the D.C. metro area), New Mexico, Nevada... just take a look at the link I provided, look at the statistics, and pop off some neurons. This isn't rocket science. Within America, there is little to no correlation between high rates of violence and the legal accessibility of guns. There is a massive correlation between poverty and violence. So maybe the solution isn't to control the guns, which as others have pointed out bars law-abiding citizens, not criminals, from access to guns. Maybe the solution is to end the cycle of inescapable poverty and ethnic ghettos. That might be a little left-wing for this forum; I don't know. But getting rid of guns is a stupid answer. Europe is not America is not Europe. While socialism and high tax rates might work for Sweden, the UK, or France, it won't work for the United States. Kind of how freedom and democracy seem to fail to take root in the middle east. But that's another issue.

The bottom line is this: gun-control laws are the first step to a police state. The goal of all gun control legislation is to create a state where no one has access to guns but the police--and therein the people become powerless. If you like that, then fine, be on your merry and enjoy the fruits of your ideology. But I like my country free, and a country can only be free if its government fears its people, not if the people fear their government.

Before I show you why ice creams are not responsible for more than 50% of all murders point out to me where I was dishonest and where I lied The Central Scrutinizer.

:-D
:-D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Ok, so do you know over there in Europe that whenever sales of ice cream go up, the murder rate goes up? Clearly we need to stop the sale of ice cream, as it causes murders.

This kind of reasoning is specious at best, because no reasonable person would ever think that ice cream casuses murders. But what does happen is that summer comes along. During summer, for whatever reason you want to accept, be it practical (younger people not in school, more people on vacation, more people outside and active) or Shakespearean (the blood is hot in summer), the murder rate goes up. Also, in summer, because it is hot, the consumption of ice cream goes up. Here is my point: correlation is not causation. Just because America has more guns than Europe and a higher murder rate than Europe does not mean that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are somehow "responsible."

Furthermore, if you look across the United States, stricter gun control does not mean lower rates of violence. The highest rates of violence occur in the large cities (Detroit has a staggering 39 murders per 100,000--and Scotland is violent :lol: ) with large poor populations. Furthermore, if you compare the states with the highest murder rates, they are often states with high rates of poverty--Mississippi, Lousiana, Maryland (thanks mostly to the D.C. metro area), New Mexico, Nevada... just take a look at the link I provided, look at the statistics, and pop off some neurons. This isn't rocket science. Within America, there is little to no correlation between high rates of violence and the legal accessibility of guns. There is a massive correlation between poverty and violence. So maybe the solution isn't to control the guns, which as others have pointed out bars law-abiding citizens, not criminals, from access to guns. Maybe the solution is to end the cycle of inescapable poverty and ethnic ghettos. That might be a little left-wing for this forum; I don't know. But getting rid of guns is a stupid answer. Europe is not America is not Europe. While socialism and high tax rates might work for Sweden, the UK, or France, it won't work for the United States. Kind of how freedom and democracy seem to fail to take root in the middle east. But that's another issue.

The bottom line is this: gun-control laws are the first step to a police state. The goal of all gun control legislation is to create a state where no one has access to guns but the police--and therein the people become powerless. If you like that, then fine, be on your merry and enjoy the fruits of your ideology. But I like my country free, and a country can only be free if its government fears its people, not if the people fear their government.

Before I show you why ice creams are not responsible for more than 50% of all murders point out to me where I was dishonest and where I lied The Central Scrutinizer.

:-D
:-D

Before you attempt to debate in english, please learn to read it with a reasonable level of comprehension. The only time I said you lied, I explained myself, saying you "lied with statistics" by claiming that 5.8 is a precipitous rise in murder rates when ten years ago we were hovering around 8.2. Not to mention the fact that you automatically assume that this is because of guns, when this lowering of murder rates was accompanied not only by an economic boom, but by the passage of dozens of concealed handgun carry laws across the United States.

[Lucky Luke]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Before you attempt to debate in english, please learn to read it with a reasonable level of comprehension. The only time I said you lied, I explained myself, saying you "lied with statistics" by claiming that 5.8 is a precipitous rise in murder rates when ten years ago we were hovering around 8.2. Not to mention the fact that you automatically assume that this is because of guns, when this lowering of murder rates was accompanied not only by an economic boom, but by the passage of dozens of concealed handgun carry laws across the United States.

I understand what a liar does The Central Scrutinizer:

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

So far you haven't shown any falsehood from me.

Where did I write one of these The Central Scrutinizer? Show me the lie and we can go on.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: And should I also point out how you lie with statistics? The US murder rate was 8.2 per 100,000 in 1995. 5.8 in 2005 is a 10-year improvement of -29%. Oh, the humanity.

:roll:
:roll:

Where is the lie The Central Scrutinizer?

Lucky Luke wrote: The highest murder rate for 7 years:

Quote: .........Murder rate
2000.........5.5
2001.........5.6
2002.........5.6
2003.........5.7
2004.........5.5
2005.........5.8

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl01a.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005preliminary/05table3.htm

Violent crimes are up 2.5% compared to last year, robberies up 4.5%, aggravated assaults up 1.9% and of course murders up a staggering 4.8%.

:-D
:-D

In this post The Central Scrutinizer? Where?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Before you attempt to debate in english, please learn to read it with a reasonable level of comprehension. The only time I said you lied, I explained myself, saying you "lied with statistics" by claiming that 5.8 is a precipitous rise in murder rates when ten years ago we were hovering around 8.2. Not to mention the fact that you automatically assume that this is because of guns, when this lowering of murder rates was accompanied not only by an economic boom, but by the passage of dozens of concealed handgun carry laws across the United States.

You repeated the accusation The Central Scrutinizer:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Or, I could be dishonest like you and post these.......

Dishonest you wrote, now will you have the honesty to point out to where I was dishonest The Central Scrutinizer?

:-D
:-D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Before you attempt to debate in english, please learn to read it with a reasonable level of comprehension. The only time I said you lied, I explained myself, saying you "lied with statistics" by claiming that 5.8 is a precipitous rise in murder rates when ten years ago we were hovering around 8.2. Not to mention the fact that you automatically assume that this is because of guns, when this lowering of murder rates was accompanied not only by an economic boom, but by the passage of dozens of concealed handgun carry laws across the United States.

You repeated the accusation The Central Scrutinizer:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Or, I could be dishonest like you and post these.......

Dishonest you wrote, now will you have the honesty to point out to where I was dishonest The Central Scrutinizer?

:-D
:-D

I just did, dumbass.

:bang:
:bang:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ok, I'm calm now. Let me ask you a question. You stated in the first post that:

LuckyLuke wrote: Violent crimes are up 2.5% compared to last year, robberies up 4.5%, aggravated assaults up 1.9% and of course murders up a staggering 4.8%.

What is the argument you are trying to make by presenting us these statistics? That America is violent? That we need to pass gun control laws?

My assumption, based on your past posting here, is that you are attempting to tie this increase in murder rates to the right of American citizens to bear arms. If I am incorrect in this assumption, please tell me the reason you posted these statistics.

If I am correct in this assumption, you are deliberately misrepresenting the statistics to fit your argument. Gun laws vary across the United States, and I defy you to present to me statistical evidence that increased gun control has led to fewer homicides. Look at the information I have already provided.

You did not lie in saying that rates of violent crimes are up. But you are being dishonest by attributing these rises to firearms, when you have yet to provide any evidence to support that notion.

[britboy]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Before you attempt to debate in english, please learn to read it with a reasonable level of comprehension. The only time I said you lied, I explained myself, saying you "lied with statistics" by claiming that 5.8 is a precipitous rise in murder rates when ten years ago we were hovering around 8.2. Not to mention the fact that you automatically assume that this is because of guns, when this lowering of murder rates was accompanied not only by an economic boom, but by the passage of dozens of concealed handgun carry laws across the United States.

You repeated the accusation The Central Scrutinizer:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Or, I could be dishonest like you and post these.......

Dishonest you wrote, now will you have the honesty to point out to where I was dishonest The Central Scrutinizer?

:-D
:-D

I just did, dumbass.

:bang:
:bang:

er .. where The Central Scrutinizer? I think the moderators must have deleted it for some reason as it is no longer there -- could you please repost?

[drBo]

He's maddening, isn't he?

[thintheherd]

Precisely why I no longer feed him. He's starved for attention and inquiry's into his madness only serves to fuel him.

We would all be wise to ignore.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

britboy wrote: er .. where The Central Scrutinizer? I think the moderators must have deleted it for some reason as it is no longer there -- could you please repost?

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: The only time I said you lied, I explained myself, saying you "lied with statistics" by claiming that 5.8 is a precipitous rise in murder rates when ten years ago we were hovering around 8.2. Not to mention the fact that you automatically assume that this is because of guns, when this lowering of murder rates was accompanied not only by an economic boom, but by the passage of dozens of concealed handgun carry laws across the United States.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: And should I also point out how you lie with statistics? The US murder rate was 8.2 per 100,000 in 1995. 5.8 in 2005 is a 10-year improvement of -29%. Oh, the humanity.

[JackarooSundown]

Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Once again, grammar dictates the usage of the word "lies" not "lie", it is plural because you had more than one.

Really? Would you like to point them out to me JackarooSundown?



Lets start with every time you give us 'the facts'

Uh-oh! The lying rate just went up .00245% in Scotland!

Where did I lie about the murder rate in Scotland JackarooSundown?


Liar. I said LYING rate.