Gun free zone

[augustocroppo]

Taking to simply lying now, are we?

Page 6, just under that table I mentioned:

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.

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.'

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:

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.

[myrkul]

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 )

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:

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.

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.

[FirstAscent]

Address this:

http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/

US:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

UK:
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

[augustocroppo]

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?

[myrkul]

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?

You're an idiot.

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.

[Axios]

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.

[myrkul]

This is LYING.

Thank you for finally admitting it.

[UPENtXF]

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?"

[myrkul]

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?"

I'd rather not sit through the whole thing... What was the answer given?

[Richy_T]

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.

[FirstAscent]

Address this:

http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/

US:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

UK:
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

[Lethn]

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?"

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.

[augustocroppo]

You're an idiot.

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."

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.

[Axios]

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

[RodeoX]

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.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Quote of the day:

"So another mass-murder conducted by a product of government schools, in a government school, under the government-recommended/mandated care of a government-employed/licensed shrink, on government-approved and government-promoted mind-altering drugs, in a government-mandated weapon-free zone, protected by a government agency the government claims 'serves and protects' (though it is incapable of doing so). Clearly the problem is guns." (Thanks to Sam)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/129008.html

[gyverlb]

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.

You should not post with your brains on testosterone, really...

What is absolutely amazing is that I expected some rational justifications from the pro-guns side. I was even prepared to be convinced that the US didn't fit the model that worked for other civilized countries. But all posts here and what I've seen everywhere else demonstrate either obvious logical fallacies, reference to an amendment written 225 years ago like it's god-written and should not be questioned, irrational fears that borderline paranoia or just plain stupidity. This country is a shadow of itself, please put yourself together, that's not like we don't care and enjoy the train wreck.

[augustocroppo]

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

Confirmed:

( ( 67920 + 13232 + 550 + 17772 ) / 626410000 ) : 100000

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28+%28+67920+%2B+13232+%2B+550+%2B+17772+%29+%2F+626410000+%29+%3A+100000

158.8 : 386.3

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=158.8+%3A+386.3

That means for each 1 violent action committed against an UK citizen in 2011, there were 2.43 violent actions committed against an USA citizen in 2011.

[TheButterZone]

The right to self-defense preexisted the U.S. Constitution, written language, and even homo sapiens. Do you love to torture animals after you've declawed them, ripped out their teeth, and excised their defensive noxious/poisonous secretion glands? Fuck you for wanting innocents to be defenseless.

[Lethn]

USA is 386.3 per 100,000

The problem with using this statistic and trying to compare the UK with the US is that the US is in fact a bigger country ( by a lot ) and will of course have more crime because of the larger population that comes with the size of the land, the same can also be said in reverse for the UK, because of the smaller land and smaller population the crime rate will be lower, plus it is easier to police a smaller group of people than a larger one. I sadly must conclude that this will be the result of any debate, lots of flawed statistics, flawed reasoning and no realistic solutions offered which is why I find this debate so stupid, it's a bit like news organisations that make conclusions based on a poll of 5000 people and assume that is what the rest of the country thinks, no thank you, I'm more intelligent than that.