NRA vs Chris Christie: Christie Defeated by Logic

[OriginalShroom]

Using the wiki link that Jake supplied, this is interesting..

In the UK, In 2010/11, 31 people per 1000 interviewed reported being a victim of violent crime in the 12 preceding months.

Meanwhile in the U.S. In 2009 there were 16.9 victimizations per 1000 persons aged 12 and over.

It would appear that the UK is nearly twice as violent as the U.S. . I wonder if that is because in the UK, the violent criminals know that their victims will be unarmed while that is not the case in the U.S.?

At least you are reading. Go above and see the comparisons of crime reporting, which will account for your misunderstanding of the rates.

You are attempting to equate a specific portion instead of overall all violent crime rates then pick one set of laws as being better than the others.

I call that "Cherry Picking".

Instead, look at the over all violent crime rates and then compare them, trying to determine as to why one is vastly different than the other.

Having one country with nearly less than half the crime rate of the other, especially when the larger much more populated country has the lesser amount, is indicative that it is more than simply "They are better people".

Since the discussion is about guns, it does beg the question, since the UK has banned most private ownership of firearms, could that be at the very least a part of the answer as to the difference in rates?

My gut feeling is that the answer is yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TK, you are responding to velvtacheeze, but I must be in your mind. Do you have a mancrush on me?

You wish. However, I do regularly crush your arguments. Care to go a few rounds? Besides, that comment sounded like something you would make anyhow.

You have never won a round with me, just ended up bloody and on the ground.

Typical reactionary breast beating by you. Quit being silly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Using the wiki link that Jake supplied, this is interesting..

In the UK, In 2010/11, 31 people per 1000 interviewed reported being a victim of violent crime in the 12 preceding months.

Meanwhile in the U.S. In 2009 there were 16.9 victimizations per 1000 persons aged 12 and over.

It would appear that the UK is nearly twice as violent as the U.S. . I wonder if that is because in the UK, the violent criminals know that their victims will be unarmed while that is not the case in the U.S.?

At least you are reading. Go above and see the comparisons of crime reporting, which will account for your misunderstanding of the rates.

You are attempting to equate a specific portion instead of overall all violent crime rates then pick one set of laws as being better than the others.

I call that "Cherry Picking".

Instead, look at the over all violent crime rates and then compare them, trying to determine as to why one is vastly different than the other.

Having one country with nearly less than half the crime rate of the other, especially when the larger much more populated country has the lesser amount, is indicative that it is more than simply "They are better people".

Since the discussion is about guns, it does beg the question, since the UK has banned most private ownership of firearms, could that be at the very least a part of the answer as to the difference in rates?

My gut feeling is that the answer is yes.

Not at all. I am pointing out how the rates are defined and counted differently.

However, we can point out that murder rates per capital in the UK and Canada are far less than the US.

We could then argue the reason is their greater restrictions on firearms.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK, you are responding to velvtacheeze, but I must be in your mind. Do you have a mancrush on me?

You wish. However, I do regularly crush your arguments. Care to go a few rounds? Besides, that comment sounded like something you would make anyhow.

You have never won a round with me, just ended up bloody and on the ground.

Typical reactionary breast beating by you. Quit being silly.

Oh yeah, Tarzan? Really, Jake, ever since I exposed you for the fraud you are, you've done nothing but troll. Have fun with that.

 

[OriginalShroom]

At least you are reading. Go above and see the comparisons of crime reporting, which will account for your misunderstanding of the rates.

You are attempting to equate a specific portion instead of overall all violent crime rates then pick one set of laws as being better than the others.

I call that "Cherry Picking".

Instead, look at the over all violent crime rates and then compare them, trying to determine as to why one is vastly different than the other.

Having one country with nearly less than half the crime rate of the other, especially when the larger much more populated country has the lesser amount, is indicative that it is more than simply "They are better people".

Since the discussion is about guns, it does beg the question, since the UK has banned most private ownership of firearms, could that be at the very least a part of the answer as to the difference in rates?

My gut feeling is that the answer is yes.

Not at all. I am pointing out how the rates are defined and counted differently.

However, we can point out that murder rates per capital in the UK and Canada are far less than the US.

We could then argue the reason is their greater restrictions on firearms.

You are cherry picking to get the result you want.

I am looking at the over all violent crime rate.

And that poses the question.. WHY the huge difference?

Could that answer be it is because criminals know that they stand a chance of confronting an armed "victim" in the U.S. and criminals in the U.K. know that they don't?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh yeah, Tarzan? Really, Jake, ever since I exposed you for the fraud you are, you've done nothing but troll. Have fun with that.

Silly boy, as you say that out of a bloody mouth full of stumps.

 

[TemplarKormac]

At least you are reading. Go above and see the comparisons of crime reporting, which will account for your misunderstanding of the rates.

You are attempting to equate a specific portion instead of overall all violent crime rates then pick one set of laws as being better than the others.

I call that "Cherry Picking".

Instead, look at the over all violent crime rates and then compare them, trying to determine as to why one is vastly different than the other.

Having one country with nearly less than half the crime rate of the other, especially when the larger much more populated country has the lesser amount, is indicative that it is more than simply "They are better people".

Since the discussion is about guns, it does beg the question, since the UK has banned most private ownership of firearms, could that be at the very least a part of the answer as to the difference in rates?

My gut feeling is that the answer is yes.

Not at all. I am pointing out how the rates are defined and counted differently.

However, we can point out that murder rates per capital in the UK and Canada are far less than the US.

We could then argue the reason is their greater restrictions on firearms.

Actually, not all murders and violent crime are related to firearms or restrictions.. In fact most of them occur in lieu of restrictions. Hey Jake, spin it up brotha!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh yeah, Tarzan? Really, Jake, ever since I exposed you for the fraud you are, you've done nothing but troll. Have fun with that.

Silly boy, as you say that out of a bloody mouth full of stumps.

Wow, aren't we quite the narcissist? Did someone take a nice long piss in your bowl of Wheaties this morning?

 

[JakeStarkey]

not all murders and violent crime are related to firearms or restrictions.. In fact most of them occur in lieu of restrictions.

Make the argument then.

 

[TemplarKormac]

not all murders and violent crime are related to firearms or restrictions.. In fact most of them occur in lieu of restrictions.

Make the argument then.

Hell I could kill someone with an unsharpened pencil if I wanted to. A crowbar, a car, my bare hands, I could poison you, gut you like a fish, or hang you by a noose, I could even kill you with a traffic cone or a sweater vest. You can't ban them all, and you can't blame it all on guns. Even if you did ban them all, they would still happen regardless.

Case in point. Your assertion that all guns are responsible for all violent crime is flawed.

Next.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anyone's who against gun control is too dumb to own a gun. See how simple that is?

Shut the hell up, troll.

 

[JakeStarkey]

not all murders and violent crime are related to firearms or restrictions.. In fact most of them occur in lieu of restrictions.

Make the argument then.

Hell I could kill someone with an unsharpened pencil if I wanted to. A crowbar, a car, my bare hands, I could poison you, gut you like a fish, or hang you by a noose, I could even kill you with a traffic cone or a sweater vest. You can't ban them all, and you can't blame it all on guns. Even if you did ban them all, they would still happen regardless.

Case in point. Your assertion that all guns are responsible for all violent crime is flawed.

Next.

Flawed conclusion: show where I ever asserted "that all guns are responsible for all violent crime . . .".

 

[Truthmatters]

Anyone's who against gun control is too dumb to own a gun. See how simple that is?

Shut the hell up, troll.

How can you NOT be for gun control?

hello ,


there are terrible people on ther internets who are complete sociopaths.

They will be very unkind to anyone who cares about others.


Please dont let them get to you.

they are the scum of the earth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Make the argument then.

Hell I could kill someone with an unsharpened pencil if I wanted to. A crowbar, a car, my bare hands, I could poison you, gut you like a fish, or hang you by a noose, I could even kill you with a traffic cone or a sweater vest. You can't ban them all, and you can't blame it all on guns. Even if you did ban them all, they would still happen regardless.

Case in point. Your assertion that all guns are responsible for all violent crime is flawed.

Next.

Flawed conclusion: show where I ever asserted "that all guns are responsible for all violent crime . . .".

The moment you insisted that gun control was viable. Keep walking.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anyone's who against gun control is too dumb to own a gun. See how simple that is?

Shut the hell up, troll.

How can you NOT be for gun control?

I'm more for stupid control. Controlling stupid people like you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Shut the hell up, troll.

How can you NOT be for gun control?

hello ,


there are terrible people on ther internets who are complete sociopaths.

They will be very unkind to anyone who cares about others.


Please dont let them get to you.

they are the scum of the earth.

Or, I can be like you, who cares not for the rights of law abiding citizens. Is that a caring attitude my friend?

 

[J.E.D]

Logic works every time.

What's your excuse?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hell I could kill someone with an unsharpened pencil if I wanted to. A crowbar, a car, my bare hands, I could poison you, gut you like a fish, or hang you by a noose, I could even kill you with a traffic cone or a sweater vest. You can't ban them all, and you can't blame it all on guns. Even if you did ban them all, they would still happen regardless.

Case in point. Your assertion that all guns are responsible for all violent crime is flawed.

Next.

Flawed conclusion: show where I ever asserted "that all guns are responsible for all violent crime . . .".

The moment you insisted that gun control was viable. Keep walking.

Flawed assertion. Show where I "insisted that gun control was viable."

You are losing already.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shut the hell up, troll.

How can you NOT be for gun control?

I'm more for stupid control. Controlling stupid people like you.

This exactly what reactionaries want, to control people who do not agree with them.

 

[Bfgrn]

The NRA wants to protect our children, just as long as it doesn't inconvenience murderers, wife beaters, felons and the mentally ill having to submit to a background check.

And the gun manufacturers wants to protect our children, just as long as it doesn't cut into their profits.