Carl Nisarel wrote:
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.
Carl:
No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine.
Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted
that he did it.
Do you think he did it deliberately? Should a mistake in labeling be
equated to being a liar?
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.
Rapes 95,136
Robberies 420,637
Assaults 894,348
--------
Total 1,410,121
Do you mean to imply that no significant quantity of those 1,410,121
victims were the "loved ones" of another?
Now since we have 1,410,121 victims, don't you think that tends to
validate Richard's original claim that "a loved one is assaulted by an
unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm"
hundreds of thousands of times a year?
Now even *IF* we were to subtract an amount to simulate your alleged
"MOST assaults and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim",
let's say an even 1,000,000 (about 70% of the cases), we still would
have 410,121 cases. Which seems to leave 100's of thousands of cases to
me.
Lewis created the idiotic definition and is moving the goalpost trying
to get anything crammed into it.
ARE 100's of thousands of people the victims of violent crime per
year? DID Richard make up those statistics out of thin air?
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.
The data as I see it, seems to show that 100's of thousands of people
are the victims of violent crime per year. Wasn't THAT one of your
points of contention with Richard?
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.
You "claim" to have credible information but how can we judge *IF* it's
credible without seeing it, or it's source? Not saying it ISN'T
credible, and not saying it IS.
As far as your statement that you are "...much more familiar with the
research and the data than anyone else who's appeared in the thread."
Well that's an opinion, perhaps true, perhaps not. There seems to be a
battle of the statistics going on between you and Gunner which may, or
may not, jeopardize your claim to being more familiar with the data than
anyone else.
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.
Are 410,121 victims 100's of thousands?
2) People tend to be rather hesitant about a self-defense shooting
people they know.
I would be inclined to see that as a relatively true statement.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob