OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

And you can stay in China, groveling to the authorities and hoping they let you live. No guns? For you - no guns. For them - plenty of guns. And you don't even understand your true situation - property of the state.

-- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture.

Is túisce deoch ná scéal, Gunner

See Gunner's ignorance.

Is túisce deoch ná scéal, Richard A. Lewis

That's a lame goalpost move, Richard. The question was the difference between "robbery" and "armed robbery".

You also stated that the definition you provided was the official definition used by the FBI. It isn't.

You have yet to present any statistics which show that hundreds of thousands 'loved ones' are assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" every year.

Is túisce deoch ná scéal, Thirsty Viking

That's a different issue. The question is why those 500,000 incidents of DGUs still resulted in a violent crime. The gunners like to claim that all they have to do is 'brandish' their gun and the 'criminal' runs away,

Yeah, that's better. You should have put that up first, instead of those fouled-up Interpol numbers. As I said to Tom, there was nothing in either your data sources nor his that addressed reporting percentages, which are well known to vary widely between countries. If you compare the numbers in this DoJ study with the Interpol numbers, you see that there is a huge disparity in the totals they report.

Lead with the best stuff, Gunner. When you lead with something like that Interpol data, which is full of holes (did you actually go look at it?), your argument goes to hell in a handbasket. This report is much better.

I'd still like to know more about how the Brits define simple assault versus that in the US (and they are BIG contributors to the numbers), but, overall, the DoJ study looks very convincing.

Ed Huntress

Is túisce deoch ná scéal, Kirk Gordon

Scene 1: A person who has a legal concealed handgun with him is walking down the street in Philadelphia. At the street corner, he spots a group of teenage African-American males standing around talking amongst themselves. The CCW'er decides that this is a dangerous group of youths and, as he nears the group, glares at them and gives them a glimpse of his gun. The CCW'er walks on down the street feeling proud of himself for successfully using his gun to defend himself by merely brandishing his gun. Another successful DGU, he thinks to himself. He crosses to the next street and sees a lone African-American male standing against a fence, smoking what looks like a joint. The CCW'er decides...

Scene 2: A group of teenage African-American boys are standing near a corner, discussing McNabb's dominating performance in the Eagles game the previous day. As they talk, they notice a scruffy-looking white guy glaring at them. As the guy approaches, they notice him open his coat and reach for a gun. The youth scramble around the corner to get away from this person as one of them dials 911 on his cell phone.

Scene 3: After a hard day at work, LeKevin Johnson takes a break to light up a smoke before heading home for dinner with his wife and kids. He hears a commotion at the corner, looks up and sees a white guy with a wild look in his eye...

Carl says>You have yet to present any statistics which show that

Should be no problem, just get out there and interview the surviving victims and ask if anyone loves them. Might check next of kin of the others to see if their departed were loved or just tolerated. How many mother-in-laws are crime victims?? Doesn't take a Phi Beta Kappa to do that. Get back to us Carl :o). Greg Sefton

Uh, I guess that means that you don't like it when someone goes to the original source and quotes actual numbers, eh? You'd much rather wallow in whatever crap you can find that supports your arguments.

Let's see your "stats that hold water." The DoJ report that Gunner referred to looks quite good. Do you have something that refutes it?

Ed Huntress

[Ed said]:

Listen up then, Tom, I'll keep it simple: You have no idea what you're comparing. It's well known that comparing international crime stats is a loser, because there are a lot of differences in the way they're reported, in the percentage of crimes actually reported to police, and even in the definitions of some crimes.

If that's "quibble" to you, then we can only assume you don't care what the facts are, only whether you can dredge up some data that appears to support your position. That isn't enough, particularly in this department.

Ed Huntress

In other words, Gunner, just as before....the idiot makes some bullshit claim, gets proven wrong by the cited numbers and goes off on some fantasy bullshit argument about what the numbers "really" say.

More semantic bullshit from the bullshit master.

"Interpol doesn't say these are crime comparisons. They say "Total number of offences *contained in national crime statistics*." (emphasis mine)"

Can anyone that's not an idiot interpret that sentence above as the idiot has?

I doubt it.

ral

Except that your "actual numbers" give no different conclusion than the first ones....just that you seem to see some satisfaction in arguing minutia.

Pathetic idiot.

ral

You wouldn't. You live in a turd world country and bow down to thugs.

You have access to the internet....at least what they afford you....try researching the topic.

ral

And it's still a "violent crime". You don't like the name? Call your congressman and demand that they make a new listing for "attempted violent crime", idiot.

Jeeezus Christ what has happened to the quality of argument in this place? Have the idiots completely taken over?

ral

In the UK violent offences consist of: violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery. Page 26 of link. Common assault is defined as one of the crimes of violence against a person. Page 161 of link.

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

if you had 2/10ths of a brain you could blow your nose instead of letting the snot run down your face ....

Thanks, Guido. I don't see a description there, though. The question is how the laws against simple assault are imposed and enforced, actually.

Ed Huntress

I doubt if anyone here doesn't get it except for you, dimwit. Here's what Interpol says about it:

=========================== Warning: These statistics cannot be used as a basis for comparison between different countries. They do not take into account:

national differences in the legal definitions of punishable acts

the diversity of statistical methods used

changes which may occur during the reference period affecting the data collected.

Police statistics reflect reported crimes, but this only represents a fraction of the real level. The volume of crimes not reported to the police may depend on the actions, policies and perceptions of the police. These can vary with time, as well as from country to country. Consequently, all statistical data published here should be interpreted with caution. ============================

You lazy d*****ad.

Ed Huntress

Richard, this is probably too complicated for you to follow, so you'd best stay out of it and take a nap. But maybe somebody else is interested.

I was disagreeing with Tom here. If by "the first ones" Richard means Tom's figures, then I think that the DoJ report Gunner posted, which is based on an original source (victim surveys) is, as I said, pretty convincing refutation of Tom's figures.

If Richard means the figures Gunner cut and pasted from the blog, then yes, the actual figures do produce a different conclusion. I posted that warning from Interpol in another message, and here's an example of what they mean.

Based on Interpol's numbers, this is what Gunner quoted:

They're 'way off base. Here are the Interpol numbers that actually can be compared, if you want to compare them:

4161 - US 3682 - Germany 4530 - France 5955 - England and Wales

Here's why. Those totals Gunner quoted are exactly what I said in another message: the totals that each country CHOOSES to report in its total crime reports. They ARE NOT the total crimes, and no two countries' totals are comparable. For example, the US's FBI UCR, which is the basis for the numbers, works like this:

====================================

"The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program's Crime Index is composed of selected offenses used to gauge fluctuations in the volume and rate of crime reported to law enforcement. These selected offenses include the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft."

=====================================

European countries report many crimes that the US does not. If you look at the Interpol spreadsheet for Germany, for example, and add up Germany's figures for just those categories that the US reported, the total is

3682.05, not the 7736 that Gunner reported. That compares with 4160.51 for the US.

Which are the ones that the US reported? Interpol regrouped them, but they're the exact numbers the FBI reports in the Crime Index. If you go to the Interpol site,

and download the reports for the US and Germany, you'll see that the US total (4160.51) is the sum of the first five lines in the report (1. through 4.). The US doesn't report total sex offenses, so throw out line 2. The remaining four numbers add up to 4160.51, which is the total you'll see that Interpol reported at the bottom of the page. It's identical to the total that the FBI reports in its UCR. It is NOT a sum of all of the lines in the report, just the ones that the US *chooses* to report.

Take the same four lines for Germany and you get 3682.05. France and the UK produce the other numbers I quoted above.

So, the US in the ballpark with Germany and France. It does NOT have "a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries," as Gunner said, even based on these data. In fact, if you want to use the Interpol numbers to make a point (and I really don't, for the other reasons that Interpol itself said you shouldn't use their numbers to compare countries), you see that the US's reported crime rate is slightly higher than that of Germany, slightly lower than that of France, and a lot lower than that of the UK. The DoJ report that Gunner quoted fully supports the higher figure for the UK. In fact, it's probably a lot higher than the Interpol numbers suggest, if that DoJ report is accurate.

But the UK is not "the major European countries." So I said I didn't accept what he said about those numbers. End of story.

If you're still awake, Richard, you're probably getting all tangled up in those popsicle sticks you use to do your statistics. It probably isn't worth the effort for you. If you do manage to sharpen up and actually understand some of it, you'll only find it annoying, and it will get in the way of your bluster and bullshit, you lazy blowhard.

Ed Huntress