BottleBob wrote in message ...
Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

(Richard Lewis) wrote


Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K;
assault....910K etc etc etc.
....

Robberies 420,637

Do *you* understand the difference between robbery and armed robbery?

Carl:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/2sectiontwo.pdf

The main heading for robberies at the above side doesn't distinguish
between armed and unarmed robberies. But further down it does list the
percentage (42.1%) of robberies where a firearm is used.
Why is this "armed" distinction of robbery important to you?

If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice.

Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted
that he did it.

Do you understand the difference between having "a 'loved one'
assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing
bodily harm" and those statistics?

I would venture to guess that most of those robbery and assault victims
had someone to care about them and were therefore the "loved one" of
someone else.

Ok, you don't understand the difference.

Lewis created the idiotic definition and is moving the goalpost trying
to get anything crammed into it.


If you do not, you're simply one of the idiots. Richard's data does
not match Richards claim. His claim was simply emotional drivel
unsupported by actual data.

You seem pretty free with calling other people idiots on marginal
data.

The data is in the thread and it isn't marginal.


Dude, those are not the relevant statistics. Richard created the
definition and then moved the goalpost.

Are you aware of the fact that most assaults and rapes are committed
by someone known to the victim?

I saw where you said that before. I have no information on which to
judge whether it's actually a "fact" or not. Do you have a credible
site that DOES have this information?

I have credible information and I am much more familiar with the
research and the data than anyone else who's appeared in the thread.


BTW, thinking about it right now, as soon as an "acquaintance" or
"family member" engages in the act of robbery, rape, or assault of
another... then they BECOME "an unethical criminal, intent on taking
stuff and doing bodily harm", do they not? One minute a friend, next
minute a felon.

1) It demonstrates the idiocy of Lewis' emotionally driven fallacious
definition.

2) People tend to be rather hesitant about a self-defense shooting
people they know.