The Bald Guy

You're goofy. It's been exhaustively established that there are many variables that affect crime rates, and that one cannot directly compare Australia to the US. You continue to reject it simply because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe. Whatever, Jack. Just keep showing everyone how clueless you are by asserting that gun control is responsible for the difference in crime rates... You're goofy. Of course, you also want to ensure that all women are defenseless and forced to submit to a rapist. That shows that you are also quite sick... (Dec 20, 2008 | post #1206)

Thanks, by the way, for showing that you don't actually read people's posts before claiming that they don't know what they are talking about. I had to tell you to re-read that twice and direct you to that specific section of that post before you realized that I had already addressed this issue. Bet you feel pretty stupid now, huh? You're goofy. (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1921)

Then perhaps you should actually check the website out instead of just grabbing the parts that you want to believe. Click on the tab "Explanatory Notes." In that section: "Percentages used in QuickStats are based on the relevant total population. Percentages for the following categories include in the calculation persons who were classified to the 'Not-Stated' or 'Inadequately Described' categories:" And at the top of that list? "Indigenous Persons" Look at the bottom three of that list: "Indigenous Language Education - Indigenous Persons Age - Indigenous" . This kind of highlights your problem. You understand nothing, and you make absolutely no attempt to grasp a subject. You just mindlessly regurgitate stats. But why would you need to check out "explanatory notes"? You already know everything, right? As usual, you blindly accept absolutely anything if it favors what you want to believe, and then ignore everything that contradicts what you want to believe. AGAIN, these are the "quick stats" not the official stats, and all unspecified stats were dumped into "indigenous persons." What do YOU think that did to the "indigenous persons" stat? Do you think that inflated that stat? . Well, let's hear it. What stupid argument do you have to try to dig yourself out of this hole? Or are you going to ignore it entirely? (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1920)

You're right. It's much better to ensure that all women are defenseless against and attacker and not give them a choice in the matter... And how dare he assume that just because the vast majority of murders in the US take place in various slums that the national average of actual murders committed would be reflective of Baltimore... Oh... You probably don't think that much into it, do you... (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1180)

Again Jack: SilentNoMore is not a government agency. I don't know why you can't seem to grasp that concept... (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1179)

And you don't believe there is ANY POSSIBLE WAY that quote was taken out of context? You believe that such a small quote is proof positive that the US government believes meaningful comparisons can be made between US per capita crime rates and the per capita crime rates of any other nation without any regard to any other variables that are KNOWN to affect crime rates? You believe that this "proves" that you can directly compare the US per capita crime rates (A country with an extremely diverse and large population) to Australian per capita crime rates (a country that is no where near as diverse with just a fraction of the population), and state with absolute certainty that gun control is the difference, huh? You're goofy. (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1178)

New Rule Lifts Ban On Firearms In National Parks

Luckily, reality simply doesn't care what you think, and people quite effectively use firearms defensively pretty often here in the US, even in many instances where the attacker catches them by surprise. Of course, there is something to be said for situational awareness here... (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1864)

You really do have reading comprehension problems, don't you. I said you may want to try actually reading the POST (#1899). Then I said to pay extra close attention to number 3. That's number 3 in post 1899. Honestly. I try to organize and number my posts to keep them as easy to follow as possible. I you still can't keep up I don't know what else to do for you... . Again: It's in THIS THREAD (just to avoid THAT confusion), page 85 (to see if maybe you can follow this time), post 1899, number 3. . One more time, just for good measure: This thread, page 85, post 1899, number 3. . Think you can handle it this time? Or are you going to make yourself look even more foolish? You're goofy. (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1916)

You may want to pay extra close attention to number 3 by the way... You're goofy. (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1911)

I wish someone would do a national study on the topic. I believe there have been a few local studies done on murder, and similar to what you stated, they were all in the 80-90% range. Frankly, I couldn't care less if the criminals are killing each other, as long as they are not attacking innocent people. It just gets them off of the street. Of course, if we did away with this stupid war on drugs, we'd see all violent crime drop dramatically... (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1174)

Woman right to sue over gun permit

So now it's the guns that are in gun collectors collections that are killing people? Do the gun's owners know about it, or are the guns sneaking out when they aren't looking? Please explain how a law abiding citizen owning more than one firearms contributes to the murder rate. Be specificI wouldn't say it's sane to claim that the gun collections are being used to kill peopleYou are absolutely right. If you want to be an idiot, then it's your right and I can't stop you as long as you aren't affecting my exercising of my rights. (Dec 19, 2008 | post #408)

yes, an unbelievably small portion of your unbelievably small population is very diverse. The overwhelming majority is white with a european based culture. And you think this makes your little country directly comparable to the US. You're goofy.... (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1900)

1. I didn't cite the ABS. I made a list of references from the website I DID cite, and ABS was on it. I didn't pay that much attention to the addresses beyond the fact that they were government addresses, so, no, I didn't realize I had posted the abs. As stated, though, I never cited them. At least I do read the websites I actually cite, which is more than can be said for you... . 2. You're goofy. . 3. I've given you plenty of warnings on the other thread to drop that argument before I made you look foolish. You keep pounding on the 2.3% figure, but had you actually looked at the website you would have noticed that is NOT the official figure, nor is it considered accurate ACCORDING TO THE ABS. Man you are dopey. They lumped ALL UNSPECIFIED statistics in with the aboriginal statistics for some unknown reason. Unless there is some reason to believe that the people who did not specify on the census were nearly all aboriginal, there is no reason to list them with aboriginal OR other. It's likely that the CIA dropped the unspecified stats out entirely. Now we can discuss why they would do such a thing if you are really that clueless, but that's up to you. The stat which is used on the website I cited was taken directly from a CIA report which was made using your countries official statistics. Not the "quick stats" that the 2.3% figure came from. . 4. You're goofy. . 5. You haven't offered one shred of evidence to prove that the website I posted isn't credible. They had well referenced, credible sources. YOU continually offer wikipedia as a credible source, so you cannot claim that this website isn't credible. As you would say "suck it up." . Oh, and did I mention you're goofy? (Dec 19, 2008 | post #1899)