In article k.net, Richard
Lewis says...

Pathetic idiot.

shun

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

On 29 Dec 2003 16:44:18 -0800, (Excitable
Boy) wrote:


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



I suggest you abbreviate that to "****ing drooling ignorant
spastic moron." It takes a lot less typing but has the exact
same meaning.

I assume you are unaware of how to configure Agent to
automatically insert a "sig." No extra typing required.
But then, the complete list of subjects of which you are
ignorant would probably be too long to examine. Start out
with - freedom, individual rights, liberty, free elections,
government as the servant of the people instead of vice
versa. That should keep you busy and out of mischief for
several months. We sure wouldn't want you to offend the
communist state and get into trouble.

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

(Richard Lewis) wrote in message thlink.net...

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

I doubt it.

ral



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

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

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.


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.
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/.../5696/5696.pdf

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

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

[Gunner said]:

Interesting..not what Interpol claims:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html

Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
4161 - US
7736 - Germany
6941 - France
9927 - England and Wales

Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major
European countries!


Ah, Gunner, no. You need a better class of blogs. g

Here's where those figures came from:

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...wnloadList.asp

If you compare a few countries, you'll see that entire categories are
missing from some, and there are big differences in how they report the
rest. Interpol doesn't say these are crime comparisons. They say "Total
number of offences *contained in national crime statistics*." (emphasis
mine)

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

More semantic bull**** from the bull**** 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.

I doubt if anyone here doesn't get it except for you, dimwit. Here's what
Interpol says about it:
(http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...CS/default.asp)

===========================
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 dickhead.

Ed Huntress

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

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.

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

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:

Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
4161 - US
7736 - Germany
6941 - France
9927 - England and Wales


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,
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...wnloadList.asp, 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.


Pathetic idiot.

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 bull****, you lazy blowhard.

Ed Huntress

(Richard Lewis) wrote in message thlink.net...
(Excitable Boy) wrote:

oddly enough, I don't see that happening here, either. You and
gunner must use the same "sources." Alcoa has a cure for that,
I hear. BTW, why is aluminum foil called "tin foil" ?

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



Actually, your world is the turd world and the thugs in
your world are the biggest anywhere since Adolf Hitler.
Bow down ? You and Gunner and the rest of the drooling
toothless Deliverance crew spend too much time with your
heads up your asses or sucking off the fascist pigs you
adore to be commenting on *anyone's* bowing propensities.

(Excitable Boy) wrote:

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

Barring the fact that you question my intelligence and then express
the number as "2/10ths" which is worth pointing out, your drivel
wasn't worth noticing, idiot.

Go away and come back when you stop ****ing on yourself.

ral

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I doubt if anyone here doesn't get it except for you, dimwit. Here's what
Interpol says about it:
(http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...CS/default.asp)

So the numbers of "crimes" reported by the actual countries that the
"crimes" took place in and in which they were reported and punished as
"crimes" weren't in fact "crimes" because some idiot named ed living
elsewhere proclaims that they aren't?

Sure thing, idiot.

Next post?

ral

(Excitable Boy) wrote:

Actually, your world is the turd world and the thugs in
your world are the biggest anywhere since Adolf Hitler.

Didn't do that research yet, eh, turd world boy?

Come back and grovel some more when you have.

ral

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:20:48 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I doubt if anyone here doesn't get it except for you, dimwit. Here's what
Interpol says about it:
(http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...CS/default.asp)

So the numbers of "crimes" reported by the actual countries that the
"crimes" took place in and in which they were reported and punished as
"crimes" weren't in fact "crimes" because some idiot named ed living
elsewhere proclaims that they aren't?

Evidently you are having some difficulty understanding the situation.

Let's consider a simple, and obvious, example:

Compare the number of cases of bigamy in the US with the number in
Sa'udi Arabia.

The latter country has a far lower rate than the former. Why? because
the definition is different. In the US, a guy who marries a second
woman prior to the death or divorce of the first is a bigamist. In
Sa'udi Arabia, he doesn't become a bigamist until he reaches the fifth
woman.

Mind you, it's a serious crime there, but not exactly a frequent one.

Al Moore

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
. net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I doubt if anyone here doesn't get it except for you, dimwit. Here's what
Interpol says about it:
(http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...CS/default.asp)

So the numbers of "crimes" reported by the actual countries that the
"crimes" took place in and in which they were reported and punished as
"crimes" weren't in fact "crimes" because some idiot named ed living
elsewhere proclaims that they aren't?

Sure thing, idiot.

Next post?

ral


Ah, Richard, you should have taken my suggestion and just taken a nap. Any
reasoning that you can't do with your wooden blocks or popsicle sticks, or
that takes more than two sentences, seems to throw you into a tailspin. If
you don't want to nap, just stroke your pistol for a while.

They're all crimes, Richard. But you can't compare countries based on the
Interpol reports because, as they say, we all count different crimes in our
national crime reports. Some countries include things like total sexual
offences, drug offences, fraud, and even counterfeiting, while the US does
not.

Get it? If not, give yourself a break and stop trying. This is over your
head.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido"

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.
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/.../5696/5696.pdf


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


Sorry I don't understand what you mean by the phrase 'simple
assault' if it doesn't mean the same thing as 'common assault'.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido"

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.
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/.../5696/5696.pdf


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


Sorry I don't understand what you mean by the phrase 'simple
assault' if it doesn't mean the same thing as 'common assault'.


Oh, you have that right. Simple assault and common assault are the same
thing. But there are differences in how "threats" are interpreted in
different countries. This is one law-dictionary definition:

"A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a
way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual
physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any
reasonable person can constitute an assault. Compare battery." (Nolo
dictionary)

Other definitions emphasize *threats* more than this one does. My
understanding is that there are fairly wide variations in how this is
interpreted, but that's all second-hand. I don't know whether the same
circumstances would be treated as a criminal assault in the US vs. the UK,
for example.

Since the numbers are such large contributors to total crime figures, it
would be worth knowing. However, simple assault is not included in the US
national crime figures, so it isn't relevant to the Interpol comparisons
that Gunner reported.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


"Guido"

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.
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/.../5696/5696.pdf


Thanks, Guido. I don't see a description there, though. The question is

how

the laws against simple assault are imposed and enforced, actually.


Sorry I don't understand what you mean by the phrase 'simple
assault' if it doesn't mean the same thing as 'common assault'.



Oh, you have that right. Simple assault and common assault are the same
thing. But there are differences in how "threats" are interpreted in
different countries. This is one law-dictionary definition:

"A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a
way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual
physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any
reasonable person can constitute an assault. Compare battery." (Nolo
dictionary)

Other definitions emphasize *threats* more than this one does. My
understanding is that there are fairly wide variations in how this is
interpreted, but that's all second-hand. I don't know whether the same
circumstances would be treated as a criminal assault in the US vs. the UK,
for example.

I've been looking for my "Criminal Law" book but seem to
have mislaid it. However:

"Assault includes the intentional or reckless application of
unlawful force to the person of another without his consent,
or the threat of such force by act or gesture, if the person
threatening has caused, or causes the person threatened, to
believe that he has the present ability to effect his
purpose. An assault is a battery if the force is actually
applied, and is a wounding if the flesh is opened."

http://www.globalfx.co.uk/atl/assaultmain.htm

The problem with all this is that as you'll know you cannot
simply take the wording for granted, particularly as this is
a common law offence, you have to look at case law too.


Since the numbers are such large contributors to total crime figures, it
would be worth knowing. However, simple assault is not included in the US
national crime figures, so it isn't relevant to the Interpol comparisons
that Gunner reported.


Common assault is included in UK stats under violence. This
is a breakdown of the BCS report:
http://www.police999.com/stats/crime2002-06.html

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Common assault is included in UK stats under violence. This
is a breakdown of the BCS report:
http://www.police999.com/stats/crime2002-06.html



Yes, they're counted in the US as well. But they're not an element of our
National Crime Index, and thus they are not included in the Interpol stats.
The same applies to the UK. Common assault is not included in those UK
figures Gunner quoted, nor in the revised ones that I posted.

Ed huntress

Alan Moore wrote:

Evidently you are having some difficulty understanding the situation.

Me? You missed the one key point, Alan, and you accuse me of not
understanding?

That key point is that *it doesn't matter* what or how you creatively
choose to interpret the numbers....if it's a "CRIME" in the country
that reports it, it's a "CRIME" no matter what.*

Doesn't matter if you want to use some idiocy about bigamy and try to
justify yours by saying it's legal somewhere else. If you are *here*,
it's a "CRIME" and gets reported.

But we aren't talking bigamy.....we are talking "VIOLENT CRIME"....ie
one assault compared to another and the same on murder et al. Your
lame-o logic might hold water if some turd world country like canada
legalized marijuana....you could say that the drugs crimes in canada
as opposed to the US can't be compared. That would hold water. But
we aren't talking marijuana....yet again, we are talking
MURDER/ASSAULT/ROBBERY/RAPE and the onus is on YOU to prove that any
of those aren't considered a crime in the countries in question.

Have you so far?

Has the idiot formerly known as ed?

Is there some suggestion that a murder in this country isn't
considered one in Germany? That a rape here isn't one in England?

Prove that and you'll have an argument. Until then, you're wasting my
time.

ral

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They're all crimes, Richard. But you can't compare countries based on the
Interpol reports because, as they say, we all count different crimes in our
national crime reports. Some countries include things like total sexual
offences, drug offences, fraud, and even counterfeiting, while the US does
not.

Are you just ****ing retarded or something, ed?

If it's a CRIME in the country it happens in, it's a CRIME. Doesn't
matter who or what defines it, it's still a HIGHER CRIME RATE inside
the country that reported it as a crime.

Why is it that the only time anyone tries to argue against reported
crime rates, it's inevitably some idiot on the losing end of the
argument who tries to fall back to semantics and redefine what "crime"
really is?

ral

Get it? If not, give yourself a break and stop trying. This is over your
head.

Ed Huntress

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Alan Moore wrote:

Evidently you are having some difficulty understanding the situation.

Me? You missed the one key point, Alan, and you accuse me of not
understanding?

That key point is that *it doesn't matter* what or how you creatively
choose to interpret the numbers....if it's a "CRIME" in the country
that reports it, it's a "CRIME" no matter what.*

Doesn't matter if you want to use some idiocy about bigamy and try to
justify yours by saying it's legal somewhere else. If you are *here*,
it's a "CRIME" and gets reported.

But we aren't talking bigamy.....we are talking "VIOLENT CRIME"....ie
one assault compared to another and the same on murder et al. Your
lame-o logic might hold water if some turd world country like canada
legalized marijuana....you could say that the drugs crimes in canada
as opposed to the US can't be compared. That would hold water. But
we aren't talking marijuana....yet again, we are talking
MURDER/ASSAULT/ROBBERY/RAPE and the onus is on YOU to prove that any
of those aren't considered a crime in the countries in question.

Have you so far?

Has the idiot formerly known as ed?

Is there some suggestion that a murder in this country isn't
considered one in Germany? That a rape here isn't one in England?

Violent crime isn't what the Interpol numbers are comparing, Richard. Gunner
never said it was, Interpol didn't say it was, and I didn't say it was.

Get it? Is it starting to sink into that thick skull of yours, dickhead?

Ed Huntress

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They're all crimes, Richard. But you can't compare countries based on the
Interpol reports because, as they say, we all count different crimes in
our
national crime reports. Some countries include things like total sexual
offences, drug offences, fraud, and even counterfeiting, while the US
does
not.

Are you just ****ing retarded or something, ed?

If it's a CRIME in the country it happens in, it's a CRIME. Doesn't
matter who or what defines it, it's still a HIGHER CRIME RATE inside
the country that reported it as a crime.


Thus making the report meaningless as a comparison of one countries crime
rate against another.

--

SVL

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They're all crimes, Richard. But you can't compare countries based on the
Interpol reports because, as they say, we all count different crimes in
our
national crime reports. Some countries include things like total sexual
offences, drug offences, fraud, and even counterfeiting, while the US
does
not.

Are you just ****ing retarded or something, ed?

If it's a CRIME in the country it happens in, it's a CRIME. Doesn't
matter who or what defines it, it's still a HIGHER CRIME RATE inside
the country that reported it as a crime.

You still don't get it. Let's try one more time. Arson is a crime in the US,
but it isn't counted in our National Crime Index. Neither are drug offenses,
fraud, simple assault, or many other categories.

None of them are reported to Interpol; none of them are counted in our
federal Uniform Crime Reporting system. When you see the figure for the US
of 4160 crimes/100,000 population (2001), as reported in UCR and by
Interpol, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THOSE CRIMES.

Do you get it yet, dickhead?

Why is it that the only time anyone tries to argue against reported
crime rates, it's inevitably some idiot on the losing end of the
argument who tries to fall back to semantics and redefine what "crime"
really is?

That appears to be what you're doing. Nobody else here is redefining crime.
We just made the effort to see whether those Interpol figures included all
crime. You didn't.

Ed Huntress

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:48:35 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

snip

Violent crime isn't what the Interpol numbers are comparing, Richard. Gunner
never said it was, Interpol didn't say it was, and I didn't say it was.

Get it? Is it starting to sink into that thick skull of yours, dickhead?

I regret to say that Richard is demonstrating a degree of density such
that nothing is likely to sink into it. When even the anchor floats,
it's time to give up and move on.

Al Moore

This has to challenge the record for the longest running thread (i.e., total
number of posts) on RCM in the last 5 years I've been paying attention to it!

It's been interesting reading. Keep it up Gunner, Ed (and maybe Richard)!
Very educational.

Mike Eberlein (Still wondering if it's "safer" {whatever the hell that means}
here in middle Tennessee than in London)

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Common assault is included in UK stats under violence. This
is a breakdown of the BCS report:
http://www.police999.com/stats/crime2002-06.html



Yes, they're counted in the US as well. But they're not an element of our
National Crime Index, and thus they are not included in the Interpol stats.
The same applies to the UK. Common assault is not included in those UK
figures Gunner quoted, nor in the revised ones that I posted.

Ed huntress

"Alan Moore" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:48:35 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

snip

Violent crime isn't what the Interpol numbers are comparing, Richard.
Gunner
never said it was, Interpol didn't say it was, and I didn't say it was.

Get it? Is it starting to sink into that thick skull of yours, dickhead?

I regret to say that Richard is demonstrating a degree of density such
that nothing is likely to sink into it. When even the anchor floats,
it's time to give up and move on.

Al Moore

Yeah, he's a lot dumber than I thought.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Violent crime isn't what the Interpol numbers are comparing, Richard. Gunner
never said it was, Interpol didn't say it was, and I didn't say it was.

You just don't get it, do you, idiot?

Once more....where in your wasted-brain state do you reckon Interpol
got those "CRIME" numbers? Do you reckon they pulled them outta a hat
like you do most all your arguments? No....they got them from the
countries that reported the "CRIMES" as "CRIMES". The countries
reported on reported them as crimes so they are in fact saying "we
state that we, *the above signed*, declare our country's crimerate to
be....".

It's not reported as CRIME if it's not a crime, now is it?

You in all your weirdness and idiocy, though, are looking at numbers
declared BY THE COUNTRIES INVOLVED and saying "hey, that's not your
*real* crime rate and here's why I, the expert, know better than you
do".

Just **** off, idiot! You are actually making me feel stupid for
having to fall to your level to argue with you and that is only the
second time in my life I can say that.

ral

Alan Moore wrote:

I regret to say that Richard is demonstrating a degree of density such
that nothing is likely to sink into it. When even the anchor floats,
it's time to give up and move on.

I just don't know, Alan. You and the idiot formerly known as
ed....are you guys really this stupid or is this all some sort of game
you're playing on me? I mean NO ONE can really be this stupid, can
they?

I give up.

ral

Al Moore

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
k.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Violent crime isn't what the Interpol numbers are comparing, Richard.
Gunner
never said it was, Interpol didn't say it was, and I didn't say it was.

You just don't get it, do you, idiot?

Once more....where in your wasted-brain state do you reckon Interpol
got those "CRIME" numbers? Do you reckon they pulled them outta a hat
like you do most all your arguments? No....they got them from the
countries that reported the "CRIMES" as "CRIMES".

No, dickhead, the US never said they were all our crimes. They just gave
Interpol our National Crime Index categories, which are the ones the FBI
uses as an overall index to analyze crime trends in the US. Nobody,
including the FBI, ever said those figures are our total crime figures.
Interpol just had nothing more to go on -- thus, the warning they post on
their website, not to use the overall figures to compare countries.

The countries
reported on reported them as crimes so they are in fact saying "we
state that we, *the above signed*, declare our country's crimerate to
be....".

Where the hell did you get that idea? Read the introduction to the UCR, and
you'll see what the US actually says about it. It's just an index of
selected crime categories, not our total crime rate. I posted the quote from
them yesterday, idiot.


It's not reported as CRIME if it's not a crime, now is it?

Richard, are you on drugs? The United States doesn't report all crimes to
Interpol; only the ones I listed yesterday. Germany reports EVERY category
of crime that the US reports, plus about a dozen more. Two of them (drug
offenses -- 250,969 crimes, and fraud -- 788,208 crimes) alone add over
1,200 crimes/100k to Germany's figures. (from Police Crime Statistics
[Germany], page 15, http://www.bka.de/)

Let me repeat: There are NO categories that the US reports, but which
Germany doesn't report. Got that? So, are you saying that because the US
doesn't report drug offenses or fraud in our National Crime Index, we don't
really have any drug offenses or fraud? But Germany does report them, so
they DO have drug offenses and fraud?

Richard, are you completely out of your mind, or are you just dumber than a
tree stump?

Just **** off, idiot! You are actually making me feel stupid for
having to fall to your level to argue with you and that is only the
second time in my life I can say that.

I get the feeling you were plenty stupid before we started discussing this,
Richard. You're just feeling it now because you're seeing it for yourself.

I'd be curious to hear from anyone who cares to raise their hand here. Is
there anyone who doesn't see the problem with what Richard is saying? If you
have a comment on it one way or the other, this would be a good time to pipe
up. I think Richard is on the verge of going apoplectic, and he may not be
able to reach a keyboard for much longer. g

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

No, dickhead, the US never said they were all our crimes. They just gave
Interpol our National Crime Index categories, which are the ones the FBI
uses as an overall index to analyze crime trends in the US. Nobody,
including the FBI, ever said those figures are our total crime figures.
Interpol just had nothing more to go on -- thus, the warning they post on
their website, not to use the overall figures to compare countries.

"They didn't say they were a list of our crimes....they just gave them
a list of our crimes so Interpol could list them in their crime
numbers"?

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Pathetic!

ral

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Richard, are you completely out of your mind, or are you just dumber than a
tree stump?

Box of rocks.

Bag full of hammers.

etc.

Jim

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

In article , Alan Moore says...

I regret to say that Richard is demonstrating a degree of density such
that nothing is likely to sink into it.

Well he makes up for it by cussing a lot.

Jim

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

Nice post and excellent cite, Gunner. Always refreshing to have facts to back
up my beliefs in the advantages of gun ownership!

Mike Eberlein

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:17:12 +1300, Tom wrote:

Guns? Who was talking about guns? Gunner quoted "rape, robbery, assault and
burglary are higher in the UK than in the US."
Apart from burglary they constitute violent crime.

Actually Tommy boy...in the UK, Hot Burglaries..where the home is
invaded by the bad guys, with the tenents home..is up also. And Id
consider that a violent crime.

And of course, with the cites I provided...robbery, assaults and
burglary are up in the UK, considerably greater than in the US. Do
check out the United States Department of Justice stats..unless you
consider those to be suspect also?? Snicker......

If you really want to bring guns into it compare the firearm
deaths in the UK with the US and remember dead is dead!

Tom

Yup..dead is dead. Going over some figures..I notice that New Zealand
has a much higher suicide rate than does the US. Something down there
makeing life unbearable? Might want to check in with your mental
health professional once in a while..just for a sanity check. Id miss
our banter....

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

I also notice all those nasty guns causing a REALLY high suicide rate
in Japan.

And Gosh..look at the homicide rate in Mexico! Much higher than most
other countries with the exception of Estonia. Hummmmm Im pretty sure
most guns are illegal in Mexico.

Now on the other hand...Switzerland..now there is a hot bed of
crime...where virtually every home has a firearm, public shooting
ranges are everwhere, many homes have machine guns... Hey..its got a
lower homicide rate by any means, firearms or not..less then the UK
and NZ... gosh arooony Tommy...I wonder whats going on?

Norway..hummmm even more guns than New Zealand..and a hell of a lot
less homicides of any sort, including firearms...whats up with this
Tommy?

I wonder..hummm maybe..maybe its the Culture, stupid?

Na... though..I think I did provide something about the number of
blacks killing and being killed by blacks..and the other population of
the US having a homicide rate about equal to that of the UK, or not
much higher....about like NZ actually. Interesting..what with a
quarter billion firearms in the US in private hands....seems we should
be stepping over bodies right and left. No?

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
link.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

No, dickhead, the US never said they were all our crimes. They just gave
Interpol our National Crime Index categories, which are the ones the FBI
uses as an overall index to analyze crime trends in the US. Nobody,
including the FBI, ever said those figures are our total crime figures.
Interpol just had nothing more to go on -- thus, the warning they post on
their website, not to use the overall figures to compare countries.

"They didn't say they were a list of our crimes....they just gave them
a list of our crimes so Interpol could list them in their crime
numbers"?

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Pathetic!

ral


Time for your meds, Richard. Double your Thorazine dose; it looks like
you're in for a rough day.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


I'd be curious to hear from anyone who cares to raise their hand here. Is
there anyone who doesn't see the problem with what Richard is saying? If you
have a comment on it one way or the other, this would be a good time to pipe
up. I think Richard is on the verge of going apoplectic, and he may not be
able to reach a keyboard for much longer. g


I can see his point, and look forward to him continuing to
making it, hopefully ever more stridently.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


I'd be curious to hear from anyone who cares to raise their hand here.
Is
there anyone who doesn't see the problem with what Richard is saying? If
you
have a comment on it one way or the other, this would be a good time to
pipe
up. I think Richard is on the verge of going apoplectic, and he may not
be
able to reach a keyboard for much longer. g


I can see his point, and look forward to him continuing to
making it, hopefully ever more stridently.


Haha! Guido, you are an instigator and ****-stirrer of rare ability. g

Maybe he'll be able to increase his swearing content a bit. That certainly
will make it more convincing...

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

You still don't get it. Let's try one more time. Arson is a crime in the US,
but it isn't counted in our National Crime Index. Neither are drug offenses,
fraud, simple assault, or many other categories.

None of them are reported to Interpol; none of them are counted in our
federal Uniform Crime Reporting system. When you see the figure for the US
of 4160 crimes/100,000 population (2001), as reported in UCR and by
Interpol, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THOSE CRIMES.

I guess I must have missed something while taking a shower and
washing out my eyes after reading one of Gunner's posts. Arson isn't
reported as a crime in the National Crime Index? And fraud isn't? And
drug offenses aren't? Drug offenses?? Right in the middle of a
national war on drugs, we're not even keeping score??

And there are similar kinds of selectivity in other countries'
reporting of crimes? But we're still spending megabytes of bandwidth to
debate the idea that one place or another has a higher/lower crime rate,
and to argue about how an armed (or not) population does or doesn't
affect all these numbers that we can't compare, standardize, or accept
with certainty in the first place?

****! If THAT kind of logic is permissible, then I'm going to make
a fortune selling drill grinders. My competitors won't know what hit them!

"The average paint on my machines is 75% THICKER than the film of
oil on the slideways on my competitor's machines. Thicker is better!"

"I use high only quality iron castings for the critical structural
parts of my grinder, but my competitors use cheap PLASTIC for the keypad
buttons on their controls. That's an IMPORTANT difference!"

"My competitors claim that their machines will position at 800 IPM
in rapid mode; but my machines have been clocked at over 76 THOUSAND
inches per minute, (72 miles per hour), while being delivered by truck
to customers' plants. Clearly, only a fool would think the competitor's
machine makes any sense at all."

I can't WAIT to try this out on my customers. They'll be SO
impressed! I'll probably need a gun to protect myself while I'm
carrying all my money to the bank!

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

You still don't get it. Let's try one more time. Arson is a crime in the
US,
but it isn't counted in our National Crime Index. Neither are drug
offenses,
fraud, simple assault, or many other categories.

None of them are reported to Interpol; none of them are counted in our
federal Uniform Crime Reporting system. When you see the figure for the
US
of 4160 crimes/100,000 population (2001), as reported in UCR and by
Interpol, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THOSE CRIMES.

I guess I must have missed something while taking a shower and
washing out my eyes after reading one of Gunner's posts. Arson isn't
reported as a crime in the National Crime Index? And fraud isn't? And
drug offenses aren't? Drug offenses?? Right in the middle of a
national war on drugs, we're not even keeping score??

And there are similar kinds of selectivity in other countries'
reporting of crimes? But we're still spending megabytes of bandwidth to
debate the idea that one place or another has a higher/lower crime rate,
and to argue about how an armed (or not) population does or doesn't
affect all these numbers that we can't compare, standardize, or accept
with certainty in the first place?

****! If THAT kind of logic is permissible, then I'm going to make
a fortune selling drill grinders. My competitors won't know what hit
them!

"The average paint on my machines is 75% THICKER than the film of
oil on the slideways on my competitor's machines. Thicker is better!"

"I use high only quality iron castings for the critical structural
parts of my grinder, but my competitors use cheap PLASTIC for the keypad
buttons on their controls. That's an IMPORTANT difference!"

"My competitors claim that their machines will position at 800 IPM
in rapid mode; but my machines have been clocked at over 76 THOUSAND
inches per minute, (72 miles per hour), while being delivered by truck
to customers' plants. Clearly, only a fool would think the competitor's
machine makes any sense at all."

I can't WAIT to try this out on my customers. They'll be SO
impressed! I'll probably need a gun to protect myself while I'm
carrying all my money to the bank!


Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is *all* I
wanna to know.

--

SVL

"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

You still don't get it. Let's try one more time. Arson is a crime in the
US,
but it isn't counted in our National Crime Index. Neither are drug
offenses,
fraud, simple assault, or many other categories.

None of them are reported to Interpol; none of them are counted in our
federal Uniform Crime Reporting system. When you see the figure for the
US
of 4160 crimes/100,000 population (2001), as reported in UCR and by
Interpol, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THOSE CRIMES.

I guess I must have missed something while taking a shower and
washing out my eyes after reading one of Gunner's posts. Arson isn't
reported as a crime in the National Crime Index?

That's correct. It's not in the basic UCR, and it isn't reported to
Interpol. The DoJ goes into a long discussion of why it can't be compared to
our other crime stats in one of their publications, but here's the simple
fact about it, from the 2001 UCR:

"Arson was added to the Index in 1979 by congressional mandate, and the UCR
Program established the Modified Crime Index to include arson. More
information regarding the Crime Index can be found in Appendix II of this
report."

We track it, and there is a special report that includes it, but it's not in
the basic Uniform Crime Report, only in the "Modified" report. Thus, it's
not in Interpol's figures.

And fraud isn't?

Correct.

And drug offenses aren't? Drug offenses?? Right in the middle of a
national war on drugs, we're not even keeping score??

There's no money in the budget to do it. The FBI just tracks what Congress
tells it to track.

They DO, however, track drug *arrests*, which we can assume are somewhat
lower than the recorded crimes. If a drug crime doesn't result in an arrest,
it's probably harder to tell that a crime has been committed in this
category than in most others. Where was the victim, or where was the damage?
That's the problem.

Here are the arrest figures from the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
This is federal:

"Of the 115,589 offenders arrested by Federal law enforcement agencies in
2000, 28% were arrested for drug offenses."

This is the state/local for 2001:

627,132 arrests for violent crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault)

1,618,465 arrests for property crimes (burglary, larceny/theft, motor
vehicle theft, and arson)

1,586,902 drug-related arrests


And there are similar kinds of selectivity in other countries'
reporting of crimes?

Not as much, and some countries have really extensive lists. Interpol sends
out a questionnaire and the central police offices of the countries fill
them out. In the case of the US, we have nothing to fill in the blanks
except the National Crime Index. Take a look at what Germany reports for
comparison. (I posted the link in an earlier message.)

But we're still spending megabytes of bandwidth to
debate the idea that one place or another has a higher/lower crime rate,
and to argue about how an armed (or not) population does or doesn't
affect all these numbers that we can't compare, standardize, or accept
with certainty in the first place?

I'M not debating it. Richard the dickhead is debating it. There is no
debate. The reports are clear enough that a 2nd grader could see what's
going on. That leaves Richard out, of course.

Ed Huntress

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

I guess I must have missed something while taking a shower and
washing out my eyes after reading one of Gunner's posts. Arson isn't
reported as a crime in the National Crime Index? And fraud isn't? And
drug offenses aren't? Drug offenses?? Right in the middle of a
national war on drugs, we're not even keeping score??


Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is *all* I
wanna to know.

Gunner posted a quote from some blog to the effect that the US has much less
total crime than major European countries, based on Interpol reports. It
isn't so, which is what the discussion has been about ever since.

Our overall crime levels are similar to those of France and Germany, but
considerably lower than those of England/Wales.

Ed Huntress

My favorite has always been "Dumber than God made a keg of nails."

Happy New Year

Mike Eberlein

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Richard, are you completely out of your mind, or are you just dumber than a
tree stump?

Box of rocks.

Bag full of hammers.

etc.

Jim

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

Ed Huntress" wrote in message
t...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...



Heh.......

But what this all has to do with the price of tea in China is *all* I
wanna to know.

Gunner posted a quote from some blog to the effect that the US has much
less
total crime than major European countries, based on Interpol reports. It
isn't so, which is what the discussion has been about ever since.


Well, Duhh......I knew that all along, Ed.

Its all about attempting to correlate two or more sets of facts or
statistics that are at often best remotely connected so as to represent a
single "fact" in order to promote some agenda.

Kirk said it quite well IMO.........

Suppose, for instance, one set of data is gathered as to the price
fluctuations of tea in China over a period of time.

Another set of data is gathered concerning deadly automobile accidents in
the USA over the same time frame.......

Suppose further, when one chart moved positive, the other moved negatively
more or less, and did so throughout several cycles over the time period.

Would this mean there is a definite correlation between the two data sets
???

Why, of course not !!!

But in fact, it is exactly this type of ( Faulty ) statistical comparison
that is *very* frequently used, and presented in order to sway people's
opinion on any number of topics and agendas..........it is simply one area
where statistics and probability cross the line from being legitimate tools,
useful for scientific analysis into the realm of being nothing other than
pure propaganda.

--

SVL