8-Year-Old Kills Caregiver After Playing Grand Theft Auto IV

why do you let kids have access to a gun? Where is the gun locker at? Some of these are preventable. I don't understand why parents are ignorant in not child proofing a house and let kids have free roam over the place.
 
I don't understand why parents are ignorant in not child proofing a house and let kids have free roam over the place.
Click to expand...

When it comes to guns the way to child proof them is to child proof the child, not the house. You have to teach the kid what a gun is, what a gun does, that they will get to learn about them later but that for now they are to keep their hands off them.

If you ignore this advice you are only setting your kid up to get hurt later on down the line.

As an example, is your oven top child proofed or did you teach your child not to pull on the handles and stick his hands up there? Same difference.
 
As an example, is your oven top child proofed or did you teach your child not to pull on the handles and stick his hands up there? Same difference.
Click to expand...

BTW, after you taught your child about the oven. After you showed him/her how hot it was. Did your child ever pull a pan of blazing hot pain down onto his own head? No right? Cause they can learn these things.
 
BTW easy way to teach a kid about how hot an oven top is. Show them a piece of bacon that was left out all day. (IE room temperature.) Have them hold it. feel how it is kind of like their skin. Then plop it in a sizziling hot pan. Then show them the result. Ask if that is what they want to happen to their hands.. you get the idea. (though that might be a bad idea.. if they get hungry.. hummm I need to rethink that.)

Another avenue to handle gun control. And plenty of people won't like it. Arm EVERYONE. Every adult is armed (short of mentally unstable or parolees or the sort.) then a criminal has to REALLY think before wielding something that is supposed to give them a sense of power over a situation. Suddenly they don't have the dominant force any longer and are on an equal playing field to grandma. Violent crime will plummet.

Want proof.. Ask Switzerland. And that's only the males.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
People who play video games just blanket deny that games can possibly influence the mental state of a person. They cite themselves or any other number of personal experiences while ignoring or attempting to discredit the many, many studies that make it blatantly obvious that violent games make violent people. They'll also try to distract others by pointing at a television and saying, "Look over there! That's worse so ignore my games and pay attention to the older evil thing. You don't have to worry about games because TV has been around longer," as a way to avoid the issue.
Click to expand...

Games do not "make" people violent, the person already has violent tendencies, the game is a trigger for it at most, or an easy excuse to blame as people will believe it, as i said before and i game doesn't do it, a movie will, or a angry song or something else.

Before video games were around what "made" people violent then?

i would be more concerned about the frequency of music being set to 432 Hz vs 440Hz ( - or something that apparently does have a psychological effect on people emotional states.

MUSICAL CULT CONTROL:THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION’S WAR
ON CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH THE IMPOSITION OF A=440HZ STANDARD TUNING
by

Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH, DNM(hon.)

is one on it.
 
mope54 said:
I don't know what that site is but they don't cite any references. Next time you want to post "facts" do so from a reputable source if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

This is the data from the Australian Institute of Criminology:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/facts/1-20/2012/1_recorded.html


the 12 month period directly after 1997 saw a 10% drop in homicides instead of a 3.2% increase as the blog you cited claims

since 1997 to 2011 there has been a 33% drop in homicides.
Click to expand...

Table 1 Victims of selected violent crimes, 1996–2011 (n)
Homicide Assault Sexual assault Robbery Kidnapping/abduction
1996 354 114,156 14,542 16,372 478
1997 364 124,500 14,353 21,305 564
1998 334 130,903 14,689 23,801 707
1999 385 134,271 14,699 22,606 766
2000 362 138,708 16,406 23,336 695
2001 347 152,283 17,577 26,591 767
2002 366 160,118 18,718 20,989 706
2003 341 157,280 18,025 19,709 696
2004 302 156,849 19,171 16,513 768
2005 301 166,507 18,695 17,176 729
2006 321 172,441 19,555 17,375 726
2007 283 176,077 19,954 17,996 733
2008 293 170,720 19,992 16,513 788
2009 293 175,277 18,807 15,238 564
2010 260 171,083 17,757 14,582 603
2011 274 117,873 17,238 13,617 670

According to this, there has been a drop in homicides but a significant increase in Assault, Sexual Assualt, and Kidnappings, and Robberys have been going up and down.
 
BTW, I have no idea about Australia but in the US, justifiable homicide is still tracked as a homicide so not every number in the column represents a bad guy on good guy murder. Might be the same for accidental killings as well.
 
Grimlaking said:
BTW easy way to teach a kid about how hot an oven top is. Show them a piece of bacon that was left out all day. (IE room temperature.) Have them hold it. feel how it is kind of like their skin. Then plop it in a sizziling hot pan. Then show them the result. Ask if that is what they want to happen to their hands..
Click to expand...
I wish my hands tasted like bacon.
 
lcpiper said:
BTW, I have no idea about Australia but in the US, justifiable homicide is still tracked as a homicide so not every number in the column represents a bad guy on good guy murder. Might be the same for accidental killings as well.
Click to expand...
no, this is not true.
 
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
Definition

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter,
Click to expand...

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html

The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.
Click to expand...

It would seem you are correct again mope54. Although since this tracks solely the police determination, reflected by their investigation and not the determination of a court, etc... Not every reported murder was actually a murder.

Let's see how this works, will Trayvon Martin be represented in the Murders column for FY 2012?
State of Florida v. George Zimmerman was a criminal prosecution of George Zimmerman on the charge of second-degree murder stemming from the shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012.
Click to expand...
 
zero1945 said:
Absurd. Every American city and state doesn't have the gun violence problem Chicago has. I don't dodge bullets everyday and I'm sure few on this forum do either. Even the shittiest areas of NJ don't have 5-10 murders every weekend.
Click to expand...
zero1945 said:
Trenton is a sewer like parts of Chicago. The article said 4 homicides, not five to 10. Also, Chicago is not a state.
Click to expand...
Well, Trenton is either part of NJ or it is not. There's a point where it's ok for you to admit you are wrong and just start accepting the facts instead of trying to argue yourself out of the corner you painted yourself into. I would respect you more if you were able to acknowledge facts that didn't coincide with your viewpoint. It doesn't make me feel like a winner while regarding you as a loser when you admit that you learned something new. I guess it's progress that you learned Chicago is not a state or not quite sure why you made that statement.

PCunicorn said:
According to this, there has been a drop in homicides but a significant increase in Assault, Sexual Assualt, and Kidnappings, and Robberys have been going up and down.
Click to expand...
True, even the Australians aren't naive enough to suggest that removing guns from their society reduced crime. They simply wanted to reduce gun crime. I make not other claims about the data other than to point out that that those sites were widely misusing (or miscalculating) the number of violent incidents.

@lcpiper
Martin wouldn't be counted in the UCR murder statistics because the police did not classify his death as a murder.

Keep in mind the posts I wrote earlier about the deficiencies in the UCR. When we discuss violent crime we also use NCVS (national crime victim survey -- not so good for murder for what should be obvious reason ;)), self-reporting data, and some of us use medical data (things like how many people are admitted into hospitals for gunshot wounds and broken bones)
 
BTW, what about the CDC's stats?

The CDC tracks causes of death and I know they differentiate between deaths by accidents, self-inflicted(Suicides) and Assault(Homicides), But how doe's the CDC differentiate justifiable homicide from murder and manslaughter?
 
mope54 said:
Well, Trenton is either part of NJ or it is not. There's a point where it's ok for you to admit you are wrong and just start accepting the facts instead of trying to argue yourself out of the corner you painted yourself into. I would respect you more if you were able to acknowledge facts that didn't coincide with your viewpoint. It doesn't make me feel like a winner while regarding you as a loser when you admit that you learned something new. I guess it's progress that you learned Chicago is not a state or not quite sure why you made that statement.


True, even the Australians aren't naive enough to suggest that removing guns from their society reduced crime. They simply wanted to reduce gun crime. I make not other claims about the data other than to point out that that those sites were widely misusing (or miscalculating) the number of violent incidents.

@lcpiper
Martin wouldn't be counted in the UCR murder statistics because the police did not classify his death as a murder.

Keep in mind the posts I wrote earlier about the deficiencies in the UCR. When we discuss violent crime we also use NCVS (national crime victim survey -- not so good for murder for what should be obvious reason ;)), self-reporting data, and some of us use medical data (things like how many people are admitted into hospitals for gunshot wounds and broken bones)
Click to expand...

I don't really care if some random guy on the internet "respects" me or not. That's creepy and weird.

The violence in Chicago is deplorable despite having harsh gun laws. Nothing that happens in NJ (despite being a dump) is comparable to Chicago despite you digging up an article that shows a single weekend in Trenton (which does not have more murders than a typical Chicago weekend).
 
I guess it's progress that you learned Chicago is not a state or not quite sure why you made that statement.
Click to expand...

Not sure, but it might have had something to do with the tighter gun laws in Chicago as opposed to the rest of Illinois. Most states have laws of "preemption",(I think it's called), where local political subdivisions(Counties/Parishes) and citys can't make laws that are essentially more restrictive then the State allows. If I remember correctly, Illinois makes an exception for Chicago and I don't know where else.

Hee may have been referring to this in some way.
 
lcpiper said:
Not sure, but it might have had something to do with the tighter gun laws in Chicago as opposed to the rest of Illinois. Most states have laws of "preemption",(I think it's called), where local political subdivisions(Counties/Parishes) and citys can't make laws that are essentially more restrictive then the State allows. If I remember correctly, Illinois makes an exception for Chicago and I don't know where else.

Hee may have been referring to this in some way.
Click to expand...

The statement was made because he was comparing the gun laws of Chicago (a city) with a list that compares the gun laws of entire states. Excluding Chicago, Illinois really isn't that bad as far as gun laws.

Take Chicago, by itself, and compare it to laws of other states.We just had a Supreme Court case regarding Chicago's unconstitutional gun laws.
 
Martin wouldn't be counted in the UCR murder statistics because the police did not classify his death as a murder.
Click to expand...

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman.

How was George Zimmerman tried for murder without being charged with murder?
I'll get back with you on this one.
 
lcpiper said:
Not sure, but it might have had something to do with the tighter gun laws in Chicago as opposed to the rest of Illinois. Most states have laws of "preemption",(I think it's called), where local political subdivisions(Counties/Parishes) and citys can't make laws that are essentially more restrictive then the State allows. If I remember correctly, Illinois makes an exception for Chicago and I don't know where else.

Hee may have been referring to this in some way.
Click to expand...
Given his latest responses, I'm pretty sure he's just trolling at this point.
He's wrong and he's mad. Rather than just learn something he'd rather lash out and try to "prove" that I don't know what I'm talking about. It's a battle for him rather than a battle against disinformation.

For example, he initially claimed that no place at all in NJ, even the worst cities, has as much murders as Chicago. Well, he's just flat wrong but rather than say. "oh wow I didn't hear about that because I don't care about Trenton" he just discarded the data because it's a "sewer."

The sad part about it is that Trenton is actually *more* dangerous than Chicago based on the rate of violent crime (the ratio of violence compared to the population size). Illinois is more dangerous than NJ, but not by much. In fact, NJ has nearly twice the amount of crimes per square mile as Illinois.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nj/trenton/crime/
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/

Because he has an ideological beef with the facts I've been presenting in this thread he is willfully unaware of the danger he puts himself in every time he steps outside his home in NJ.

Anyway, in regards to your CDC question I believe that they also have a Supplementary Homicide Report that would include things like justifiable homicide. The nice thing about the CDC website is that you can disaggregate the data in a variety of ways. What may have happened is that some people would just report total gun deaths (which you can do with the CDC data) and someone pointed out that it included justifiable homicide. That might be where you remember pointing out that it wasn't an accurate representation of murder in the US (in that case you'd be correct)

I thought you might be interested in this link regarding pre-emption
http://smartgunlaws.org/local-authority-to-regulate-firearms-policy-summary/
 
lcpiper said:
State of Florida v. George Zimmerman.

How was George Zimmerman tried for murder without being charged with murder?
I'll get back with you on this one.
Click to expand...
the police didn't charge Zimmerman in that case, the special prosecutor did after mounting political pressure

if you remember how it went down he was initially taken to the police station and released without any charges due to his claim to self-defense. it wasn't until much later that he was charged and tried on the murder allegations.
 
zero1945 said:
The statement was made because he was comparing the gun laws of Chicago (a city) with a list that compares the gun laws of entire states. Excluding Chicago, Illinois really isn't that bad as far as gun laws.

Take Chicago, by itself, and compare it to laws of other states.We just had a Supreme Court case regarding Chicago's unconstitutional gun laws.
Click to expand...

Aren't those laws dating back prior to WW2? I might be way off, but I think there was a documentary on those harsh laws created back when they were combating early organized crime.

I'll have to look it up because that was a pretty awesome documentary.
 
Statistically speaking, how many children shoot their 87 year old caregivers? Is it considered a murder?
 
Trimlock said:
Aren't those laws dating back prior to WW2? I might be way off, but I think there was a documentary on those harsh laws created back when they were combating early organized crime.

I'll have to look it up because that was a pretty awesome documentary.
Click to expand...

Something like that. The point being is that Chicago gun laws are not the same as Illinois gun laws. They are much worse. The other guy (who clearly has all day to discuss this) doesn't understand that.

We can go round and round and round and find every link we want that points to every statistic we want to find, but the bottom line is that Chicago has extremely harsh gun laws and has a murder epidemic.
 
zero1945 said:
Something like that. The point being is that Chicago gun laws are not the same as Illinois gun laws. They are much worse. The other guy (who clearly has all day to discuss this) doesn't understand that.

We can go round and round and round and find every link we want that points to every statistic we want to find, but the bottom line is that Chicago has extremely harsh gun laws and has a murder epidemic.
Click to expand...
I do understand that Chicago has tougher guns laws than the rest of the state.

*You asked the question of stealthy how a city with such harsh gun laws could have so much crime. He was trying to explain to you that simply because Chicago has tough gun laws doesn't mean someone can't just cross the street and obtain a gun easier in the next city over.

Now you're sitting here trying to shit on the data I gave you to answer that question by claiming some false equivalency between NJ and Chicago when no one did that.
 
mope54 said:
I do understand that Chicago has tougher guns laws than the rest of the state.

*You asked the question of stealthy how a city with such harsh gun laws could have so much crime. He was trying to explain to you that simply because Chicago has tough gun laws doesn't mean someone can't just cross the street and obtain a gun easier in the next city over.

Now you're sitting here trying to shit on the data I gave you to answer that question by claiming some false equivalency between NJ and Chicago when no one did that.
Click to expand...

Then why don't the people who live in "the city over" have the same gun violence problem?

Why don't the suburbs of Chicago (and the rest of Illinois) have multiple children shot to death every weekend?
 
Actually, the Chicago 'burbs do have a high rate of violent crime ever since they demolished the projects in the southside and other low income areas. But these suburbs are still technically within city limits.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Actually, the Chicago 'burbs do have a high rate of violent crime ever since they demolished the projects in the southside and other low income areas. But these suburbs are still technically within city limits.
Click to expand...

I think you see where I'm going with this. It's easy to blame guns for what is really a social and cultural problem that exists in pockets of this country.

You can go to places that have easy access to guns without having the homicide rate of Chicago.
 
well, as I wrote earlier in this thread the levels of street violence in this country are related to poverty and income inequality. I never said that guns cause crime. That's a canard that you conjured up.

Of course you can go to places with easy access to guns that don't have high levels of gun violence. The problem that stealthy was pointing out was that what you *can't* do is contain the guns in those low-crime areas. They eventually bleed out into the high crime areas.

So in high crime areas that are already experiencing structural breakdowns, when you add guns to the equation, the lethality of crime goes up.
 
lcpiper said:
Was this what caught your eye?
Click to expand...
no, I just thought you 'd be interested in a site that had a compilation of the state and local laws because you seemed like you were reading stuff that I posted and you were finding on your own. just seemed like data you'd like to have based off how you're coming across. there wasn't any point to be proven in my sharing of that data with you.
 
I see, not it's just that I was taking a quick scan and spotted that line.

You could probably rightly accuse me of being a "Statist" of sorts. There are many things I think the Federal Government should keep their noses out of. In the last round of gun control bills the one on Universal Background Checks is an example. It's not that I think that the requirement is a bad thing. It's just that I think it's my State's responsibility to do it and not the Fed's.

And to get back on the real topic, I think that poor old Granny was just too old to be watching out for a feisty little 8 year old. And I think it's unfortunate that someone didn't teach that little kid that he is still too young to be playing with guns.
 
mope54 said:
That part isn't surprising.

The part that surprises me is when he consistently cites sources that undermine his own argument.

So far, he's cited a bunch of blogs that are making numbers up or miscalculating somehow. Then he says he doesn't want to talk about suicide data or use official government data, but then cites CDC findings and a paper that is largely about suicide rates in countries with a lot of guns (and the some weird riff on colonial America gun violence and soviet Russia era homicide rates).

And then kind of makes some weird argument I can't understand about how the Australian official data is an attempt by the government to make them look better by including non-weapon robberies in the "Robbery" category, which I already explained to him would *increase* the robbery statistic.

He's unfortunately spewing misinformation without even attempting to assess what is coming up in his google searches. It's really tragic when people form their opinions like that.
Click to expand...

LO>..you sure are full of yourself. I think your arguments are moronic at best, incorrect at worst. You are a point for point bullshit artist. No use in arguing reality to someone like yourself.

The only context I applied the suicide rate comment to was the Australian rates, because that is the only thing that did have a positive effect, which did not impact the crime rates (unless you consider suicide a crime). The US studies are not relevent to that point since suicide rate is the least important statistic for gun control here. Even the FBI crime rate stats back up the data. Now, since you are a 'criminalogist' as you self describe, maybe you can actually research reference material on all of the data for youself, and stop relying on your strwa man argument that my links need references.

The fact is gun control in the minds of liberals is not gun control, it's people control. Once the stage is set for controlling the right of people to maintain arms, all other constitutional protections are gone. I believe this is the end goal you want to achieve, and, even if you are not aware that is your goal, it has been brainwashed into your mode of thought. If you were a real thinking person, you would discover this to be true before its too late. I will not be holding my breath until your epiphany occurs though.
 
BBA said:
LO>..you sure are full of yourself. I think your arguments are moronic at best, incorrect at worst. You are a point for point bullshit artist. No use in arguing reality to someone like yourself.

The only context I applied the suicide rate comment to was the Australian rates, because that is the only thing that did have a positive effect, which did not impact the crime rates (unless you consider suicide a crime). The US studies are not relevent to that point since suicide rate is the least important statistic for gun control here. Even the FBI crime rate stats back up the data. Now, since you are a 'criminalogist' as you self describe, maybe you can actually research reference material on all of the data for youself, and stop relying on your strwa man argument that my links need references.

The fact is gun control in the minds of liberals is not gun control, it's people control. Once the stage is set for controlling the right of people to maintain arms, all other constitutional protections are gone. I believe this is the end goal you want to achieve, and, even if you are not aware that is your goal, it has been brainwashed into your mode of thought. If you were a real thinking person, you would discover this to be true before its too late. I will not be holding my breath until your epiphany occurs though.
Click to expand...

I never said your links needed references. I researched the data and posted it in the thread that your sources are misstating the data. Here it is again, each one of your citations' claims fully debunked by the official data I posted in the thread:

mope54 said:
read the actual data instead of anonymous bloggers' opinions about the data. the main red flag should be that everyone you cite pulls various numbers out of their butts to support their claims

economicpolicy simply quotes a locally Sydney newspaper reporting on three men being shot and police lamenting about street violence

your military.com forum post claims:
"The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban."
this is false based on the official crime statistics I posted

the wsj journal article that came up in your google search (but apparently failed to read) actually supports what I wrote:
"In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s"
(might not want to include that source next time you try and debate this topic)

the ncpa article focuses on one year (2006) to argue a trend that gun control didn't reduce violence and then gets the facts wrong "In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent."
(reference the data I provided for the actual assault and robbery statistics for 2006)
furthermore, the article claims it's reporting on a "finding" from Australia's Bureau of Criminology but cites as a reference FreeRepublic instead of ABiC.

infowars claims:
Armed Robberies are UP 69%
Assaults Involving Guns are UP 28%
Gun Murders are UP 19%

but the numbers are different from the other blogs you cited and different from the official data I cited

so those are your (unreliable) sources and their incorrect claims. I didn't need to resort to any arguments about gun control or suicides but rather simply compared their claims against the actual official statistical data.
Click to expand...

I posted charts and graphs from Australia's official crime statistics.
Here is the link again: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/facts/1-20/2012/1_recorded.html

You called it "B.S." You said government lies about their data and used the fact that Australia includes non-gun related robberies in their robbery statistic (a point I clarified for you would actually *increase* their robbery rate instead of making them look better as you claim they were trying to do)

You keep reiterating you don't want to argue over suicide data but you continue to inject in your posts. I'm not going to respond to the troll bait. Suffice to say you are as wrong about the magnitude of gun-related suicides in the US as you have been about everything else you've been writing in this thread.

You are right about one thing, however, and that it's simply no use arguing with me because you are an ideologue arguing against the facts. You show your cards when you reference as data sources claiming to be anti-"gun grabbers" and this latest non-sensical drivel about whatever you think about gun control and then you project your hallucinations onto me as if you understand my political position...when in fact I've never stated my position on gun control or whether I am liberal or conservative.

You simply got called out on misusing and abusing crime data and since I am "against" you it feels like I must be on some political spectrum end opposite of you. No, I'm on a factual spectrum opposite of you. One where I don't have an epistemological crisis where nothing can be known, facts can't be trusted, governments are the boogyman.

I'm fairly confident that most people reading my posts in this thread recognize that you have nothing to offer this discussion other than vitriol in response to my patient analysis of all the data you've tried to rely upon and much I had to collect and post here myself to demonstrate where you are factually wrong. You've got nothing left but personal insults so that means, at least for me, there's nothing left to discuss.
 
lcpiper said:
Things have gotten to a sorry state you know. My dad has a problem at his house which is just at the outside edge of Lubbock, TX. these days, the city just keeps growing out his way. It seems that he can no longer shoot and kill nuisance animals and such like in the old days without a neighbor turning him in. You just have to put up with them and the damage they do.
Click to expand...

get a critty trap.
http://www.havahart.com/store/live-animal-traps

We had some issues with some small animals, traped them, take a very small hike in the woods/feild behind the house, like 50 ft, and blam. thats how we solved a very similar issue.
 
stealthy123 said:
a gun free society is gun free, I further explained that it will never happen and is basically a pipe dream, and you picked one line out of a post to go on a rant about.
Click to expand...

You are right, it would NEVER happen, there is no perfect world. Besides that, even if you could achieve a gun free society, it would then be a society murder with knives, hammers and screwdrivers.

What would be next?

I stand by my point: Gun control to the political class is nothing more than people control because they will never give up their guns.
 
mope54 said:
I never said your links needed references. I researched the data and posted it in the thread that your sources are misstating the data. Here it is again, each one of your citations' claims fully debunked by the official data I posted in the thread:



I posted charts and graphs from Australia's official crime statistics.
Here is the link again: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/facts/1-20/2012/1_recorded.html

You called it "B.S." You said government lies about their data and used the fact that Australia includes non-gun related robberies in their robbery statistic (a point I clarified for you would actually *increase* their robbery rate instead of making them look better as you claim they were trying to do)

You keep reiterating you don't want to argue over suicide data but you continue to inject in your posts. I'm not going to respond to the troll bait. Suffice to say you are as wrong about the magnitude of gun-related suicides in the US as you have been about everything else you've been writing in this thread.

You are right about one thing, however, and that it's simply no use arguing with me because you are an ideologue arguing against the facts. You show your cards when you reference as data sources claiming to be anti-"gun grabbers" and this latest non-sensical drivel about whatever you think about gun control and then you project your hallucinations onto me as if you understand my political position...when in fact I've never stated my position on gun control or whether I am liberal or conservative.

You simply got called out on misusing and abusing crime data and since I am "against" you it feels like I must be on some political spectrum end opposite of you. No, I'm on a factual spectrum opposite of you. One where I don't have an epistemological crisis where nothing can be known, facts can't be trusted, governments are the boogyman.

I'm fairly confident that most people reading my posts in this thread recognize that you have nothing to offer this discussion other than vitriol in response to my patient analysis of all the data you've tried to rely upon and much I had to collect and post here myself to demonstrate where you are factually wrong. You've got nothing left but personal insults so that means, at least for me, there's nothing left to discuss.
Click to expand...

You sure are good at selective reading. I call your topics misleading, but interpret it as you will. I hope your euphoric society view never has to confront reality, you will be sadly unprepared.
 
mope54 said:
no, the things you have been posting in this thread are a load of bullshit



http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12217-chicago’s-murders-for-2012-likely-to-exceed-2011

Read the article. Check the links to the statistical data. Every year Chicago *alone* had nearly twice the murders as *all* of Australia had for the same year.
Click to expand...

Well, there you have it, besides NYC, Chicago has (had---up to the latest federal court orders) some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. How should they address it? By violating 4th ammendment rights, like NYC did?

You are either a moron or a constitution hater, plain and simple. You sure your not a politician? I bet the politicians do like you though, you are a good little serf.
 
mope54 said:
the bizpacreview incorrectly cites a "harvard study" that isn't a harvard study at all. It's an academic paper pubished in the hardvard law journal written by a Don Yates from the Pacific Research Institution and Gary Mauser from Simon Fraser University in BC (earned his phd in psychology from the same university I earned my phd in criminology)

you really need to learn how to check your sources. this is like the seventh source you've cited without even bothering to verify if the claims in the blog match the evidence they cite. why do you trust sources of information that are either wrong or misrepresent the data they're basing their claims from?
Click to expand...

So that's the best you can do? Try to discredit an article because of the source? It's published by Harvard, do you not think it's credible?



You know, I am growing tired of your bullshit. Time for ignore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top