| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Central Scrutinizer wrote: 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.
I am stating a fact, reporting the truth The Central Scrutinizer.
I am not a liar, writing a falsehood or being dishonest and yet you claim that I was, how?
If you believe that calling someone a liar is ok because somehow murders in America will not be closely linked to firearms in general and handguns in particular from 2005 onwards, I suggest you ask your money back for the education you got The Central Scrutinizer:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
Again, how does that make me a liar The Central Scrutinizer?
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JackarooSundown wrote: 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.
Who lied and where JackarooSundown? Those posts do not belong to me but to you, are you calling yourself a liar?
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Central Scrutinizer wrote: 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.
Are you now making 3 separate accusations that I lied The Central Scrutinizer?
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
JackarooSundown
Joined: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 433
Location: Three thirty.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: 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.
Who lied and where JackarooSundown? Those posts do not belong to me but to you, are you calling yourself a liar?
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
GIGANTIC GUT-WRENCHING FEELING AS MAN... BREAKS THE KNOWN
STUPIDITY BARRIER...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO! NO! NO! I am NOT A LIAR! In fact, you have NO IDEA how hard it is to
restrain from saying EXACTLY what I think about you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: 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.
Who lied and where JackarooSundown? Those posts do not belong to me but to you, are you calling yourself a liar?
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
GIGANTIC GUT-WRENCHING FEELING AS MAN... BREAKS THE KNOWN
STUPIDITY BARRIER...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO! NO! NO! I am NOT A LIAR! In fact, you have NO IDEA how hard it is to
restrain from saying EXACTLY what I think about you!
Forget about calling me names, just show me where I lied JackarooSundown.
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
JackarooSundown
Joined: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 433
Location: Three thirty.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: 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.
Who lied and where JackarooSundown? Those posts do not belong to me but to you, are you calling yourself a liar?
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
GIGANTIC GUT-WRENCHING FEELING AS MAN... BREAKS THE KNOWN
STUPIDITY BARRIER...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO! NO! NO! I am NOT A LIAR! In fact, you have NO IDEA how hard it is to
restrain from saying EXACTLY what I think about you!
Forget about calling me names, just show me where I lied JackarooSundown.
:td:
:td:
How about when you said that the Second Ammendment contains clauses that specifically dictate who is fit to own a gun? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: 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.
Who lied and where JackarooSundown? Those posts do not belong to me but to you, are you calling yourself a liar?
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
GIGANTIC GUT-WRENCHING FEELING AS MAN... BREAKS THE KNOWN
STUPIDITY BARRIER...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO! NO! NO! I am NOT A LIAR! In fact, you have NO IDEA how hard it is to
restrain from saying EXACTLY what I think about you!
Forget about calling me names, just show me where I lied JackarooSundown.
:td:
:td:
How about when you said that the Second Ammendment contains clauses that specifically dictate who is fit to own a gun?
How about showing where? Where is the lie that I wrote?
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
JackarooSundown
Joined: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 433
Location: Three thirty.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: 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.
Who lied and where JackarooSundown? Those posts do not belong to me but to you, are you calling yourself a liar?
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
GIGANTIC GUT-WRENCHING FEELING AS MAN... BREAKS THE KNOWN
STUPIDITY BARRIER...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO! NO! NO! I am NOT A LIAR! In fact, you have NO IDEA how hard it is to
restrain from saying EXACTLY what I think about you!
Forget about calling me names, just show me where I lied JackarooSundown.
:td:
:td:
How about when you said that the Second Ammendment contains clauses that specifically dictate who is fit to own a gun?
How about showing where? Where is the lie that I wrote?
Lucky Luke wrote:
No, the second amendment allows for reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse.
RIGHT HERE. :dance: |
|
| Back to top |
|
thintheherd
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 3049
Location: The Crossroads of America
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OWNED |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: 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.
Who lied and where JackarooSundown? Those posts do not belong to me but to you, are you calling yourself a liar?
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
GIGANTIC GUT-WRENCHING FEELING AS MAN... BREAKS THE KNOWN
STUPIDITY BARRIER...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO! NO! NO! I am NOT A LIAR! In fact, you have NO IDEA how hard it is to
restrain from saying EXACTLY what I think about you!
Forget about calling me names, just show me where I lied JackarooSundown.
:td:
:td:
How about when you said that the Second Ammendment contains clauses that specifically dictate who is fit to own a gun?
How about showing where? Where is the lie that I wrote?
Lucky Luke wrote:
No, the second amendment allows for reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse.
RIGHT HERE. :dance:
Is Attorney General Ashcroft a liar, those are his words JackarooSundown.
The American official interpretation of the second amendment as explained in the memorandum of the head of the DOJ cannot be called a lie JackarooSundown.
You called me a liar, try again.
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
thintheherd
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 3049
Location: The Crossroads of America
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote:
Lucky Luke wrote:
No, the second amendment allows for reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse.
RIGHT HERE. :dance:
Is Attorney General Ashcroft a liar, those are his words JackarooSundown.
The American official interpretation of the second amendment as explained in the memorandum of the head of the DOJ cannot be called a lie JackarooSundown.
You called me a liar, try again.
Prove context. Otherwise you have merely spewed forth an interpretation of one. One who did not write the ammendment, nor has any real authority to interpret it, let alone draft laws supporting his interpretation..
The 2nd is what it is, eloquently written and indisputable. Your, or anyone else's interpretation of the same, based on stats, means nothing.
Again... owned |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
thintheherd wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote:
Lucky Luke wrote:
No, the second amendment allows for reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse.
RIGHT HERE. :dance:
Is Attorney General Ashcroft a liar, those are his words JackarooSundown.
The American official interpretation of the second amendment as explained in the memorandum of the head of the DOJ cannot be called a lie JackarooSundown.
You called me a liar, try again.
Prove context. Otherwise you have merely spewed forth an interpretation of one. One who did not write the ammendment, nor has any real authority to interpret it, let alone draft laws supporting his interpretation..
The 2nd is what it is, eloquently written and indisputable. Your, or anyone else's interpretation of the same, based on stats, means nothing.
Again... owned
The Attorney General's interpretation of the second amendment is not mine nor is it yours but our interpretation of the second amendment is not used in court today, the one Ashcroft has written in this memorandum to all US attorneys is used in courts all over America.
The question was did I lie and of course I did not, posters here are calling other posters names instead of accepting the reality in America today.
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
JackarooSundown
Joined: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 433
Location: Three thirty.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lucky Luke wrote: thintheherd wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote:
Lucky Luke wrote:
No, the second amendment allows for reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse.
RIGHT HERE. :dance:
Is Attorney General Ashcroft a liar, those are his words JackarooSundown.
The American official interpretation of the second amendment as explained in the memorandum of the head of the DOJ cannot be called a lie JackarooSundown.
You called me a liar, try again.
Prove context. Otherwise you have merely spewed forth an interpretation of one. One who did not write the ammendment, nor has any real authority to interpret it, let alone draft laws supporting his interpretation..
The 2nd is what it is, eloquently written and indisputable. Your, or anyone else's interpretation of the same, based on stats, means nothing.
Again... owned
The Attorney General's interpretation of the second amendment is not mine nor is it yours but our interpretation of the second amendment is not used in court today, the one Ashcroft has written in this memorandum to all US attorneys is used in courts all over America.
The question was did I lie and of course I did not, posters here are calling other posters names instead of accepting the reality in America today.
It is indeed an interpretation. But it is NOT what the 2nd ammendment says, and that was the argument Lucky Luke.
Sorry, but I win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
JackarooSundown wrote:
It is indeed an interpretation. But it is NOT what the 2nd ammendment says, and that was the argument Lucky Luke.
Sorry, but I win.
What the second amendment says is what the General Attorney stated in his memorandum and what the General Attorney says goes, goes to all Attorneys as the recommendation of the US Justice Department.
Your or mine interpretation of the second amendment are not relevant to the US courts today, Ashcroft's memorandum is.
Still you haven't showed us where I lied JackarooSundown.
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
JackarooSundown
Joined: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 433
Location: Three thirty.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote:
It is indeed an interpretation. But it is NOT what the 2nd ammendment says, and that was the argument Lucky Luke.
Sorry, but I win.
What the second amendment says is what the General Attorney stated in his memorandum and what the General Attorney says goes, goes to all Attorneys as the recommendation of the US Justice Department.
Your or mine interpretation of the second amendment are not relevant to the US courts today, Ashcroft's memorandum is.
Still you haven't showed us where I lied JackarooSundown.
I did, and thintheherd agreed. We were arguing specifically about what was written in the second ammendment, and I showed where you posted your lie. You cannot stand the fact that you are wrong, so you insist that you arent, despite the evidence I posted. ANYONE who reads this thread should agree that I won that debate, case closed LuckyLuke.
:td:
:td: |
|
| Back to top |
|
Rhoades
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 1169
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| you see, certain phenomenas happen over a few years, such as populations growing. :wink: |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jefferson
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3221
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: Re: It is up, what are you going to do about it? |
|
|
Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: 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
That is only because people like you refuse to defend themselves.
Not in Scotland JackarooSundown, and yet our murder rate is less than half yours!
:-D
:-D
I suggest you check the legal description of 'murder' in the UK and USA.
In the USA murder is a dead body.
In the UK murder is a dead body + a criminal + a conviction. Unsolved dead bodies are not murder in your country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote:
It is indeed an interpretation. But it is NOT what the 2nd ammendment says, and that was the argument Lucky Luke.
Sorry, but I win.
What the second amendment says is what the General Attorney stated in his memorandum and what the General Attorney says goes, goes to all Attorneys as the recommendation of the US Justice Department.
Your or mine interpretation of the second amendment are not relevant to the US courts today, Ashcroft's memorandum is.
Still you haven't showed us where I lied JackarooSundown.
I did, and thintheherd agreed. We were arguing specifically about what was written in the second ammendment, and I showed where you posted your lie. You cannot stand the fact that you are wrong, so you insist that you arent, despite the evidence I posted. ANYONE who reads this thread should agree that I won that debate, case closed LuckyLuke.
:td:
:td:
This was not my argument but the argument of the Attorney General, is Ashtcroft a liar when he writes such memorandum to all US attorneys?
JackarooSundown you can't call others liars just because they disagree with you then expect to be able to run away, you have not won any debate against the Attorney General and never will you.
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rhoades wrote: you see, certain phenomenas happen over a few years, such as populations growing. :wink:
Rates per 100,000 are rates per 100,000 whatever the population Rhoades, wake up to this fact.
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lucky Luke
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 8662
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: It is up, what are you going to do about it? |
|
|
Jefferson wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: 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
That is only because people like you refuse to defend themselves.
Not in Scotland JackarooSundown, and yet our murder rate is less than half yours!
:-D
:-D
I suggest you check the legal description of 'murder' in the UK and USA.
In the USA murder is a dead body.
In the UK murder is a dead body + a criminal + a conviction. Unsolved dead bodies are not murder in your country.
In Scotland we don't do murder rates but homicide rates that include culpable homicides that the US call negligent manslaughter and don't include.
Here is where you are wrong:
Quote: Fifty-five per cent of the 134 homicide cases recorded in 2004/05 have so far (at 28 November 2005) resulted in a conviction for murder (44 cases) or culpable homicide (30 cases). Fifty individual accused persons have been convicted of murder and 42 of culpable homicide in these cases.
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1513028#1513028
Don't believe what people tell you Jefferson, check it out for yourself next time.
:-D
:-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
|
