BTW Steve how about an answer to the bonus question.

You do understand the actual source you used and what those numbers were don't you?:hmmm:
It is all in the article if you piece it together:yep:

Your words were all talk, and no facts. There is nothing to follow.

So you can talk a good line, but have nothing to actually show.

But you can't actually show this detail? I repeat: Can you actually show where the numbers are wrong? So far all you've done is spin.

So actually show something.

So show where the numbers are wrong. So far you've done nothing but yammer.

So you can yet again do a lot of talking, but have absolutely nothing to back it up. Why don't you put up or shut up? Show where the numbers are wrong.

Reminded me of the words of some geezer I read somewhere: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it!" :O: Well, in this case there was also a remarkable incoherence in what he said...

No, this was not my point.
Fox reports 8000something gun homicides, then subtracts the number of justifiable homicides. This is legit. It is standard procedure when a alleged homicide happens, that the authorities examine the circumstances and when the state attorney comes to the conclusion the homicide was justified, the homicide charges are dropped.
However when they show the British numbers, they do not mention how they come to 59. Is this the number before or after justifiable homicides are subtracted?
Contrary to the US, where they show the total homicide numbers, they do also not show Britain's total numbers (which would be 550 according to the BBC - multiply the numbers times 5 to compare it with the US).
After this they mention that 59 is not the number that Morgan keeps citing, they ven put up a text."Not the number Pierce Morgan Claims". A nice way to emphasize: this guy lies. They don't even mention that the number Jones' was claiming (11thousand something) also differs from the numbers which Fox has shown. A clear bias.
Another example of dishonest reporting is that they say that a correlation between gun wonership and the murder rate is not given, which is true as there are many other factors involved. However this also contradicts Jones' statement, who claims that the violent crime rate in the US dropped because the Assault Weapons Ban ran out. Just simple math: if guns (min) has no relation to crime (min), guns (max) also does not relate to crime (min).

Do you understand the nature of crime figures?
Do you understand why(all talk) they cary a disclaimer?

All that is needed is already provided.
You kindly supplemented what was already provided to further reinforce my point.

Its all in your link
Your other link does the same but differently.
You have already shown it but don't know what you have shown.

Read your own links, watch the Fox and CNN links. Compare and contrast.
Do I have to remind you to read what I wrote again and again and again until you actually read it, all the detail is there.

Done

Wow:doh:
Would you like to read what your statment relates to?
As a clue I would suggest that line should relate to the specific quote you use.


Would you like a date again darling? thats a funny thing with numbers in it, different numbers mean different things, complicated isn't it...or is it really simple.

Similar to what jones attempted when he wanted to remove 75% of one set of figures from the US total but didn't attempt to remove the same set of figures from the UK total.

edit to add. "they do also not show Britain's total numbers. "
Your link doesn't show Britains numbers, those are for England and Wales. Other parts of Britain have different numbers, they also have different laws(incl. different firearms laws) and different methods of recording the numbers.
Crime statistics can be a bugger can't they, that is why compilations and studies carry disclaimers

At this point, Tribesman, I would suggest that you either show some figures to back up your claims or back out of the discussion all together. You wouldn't want me to think that you were just trolling, would you? Because that would be a bad thing.

Item 1. last year
Item 2. 2011
Item 3. 2009
Item 4. 2007
The figures don't compute do they, they are all different.
As a bonus they all use different sources as well as different years and each source uses different methods for counting.
Simple isn't it.
Though the 2009 figures are the most dubious source due to their nature and what they are trying to portray over a 12 year period.

None of that makes any sense at all, nor does it have any citation. Stop trolling. Last warning.

The Management

Alex Jones is pretty ridiculous and I can't see how anyone can still take him seriously.

Anyway, I'm inclined towards the same ideas Gerald Celente of Trends Research put forth, in that all this violence is largely a symptom of the dehumanisation of modern society and overprevalence of prescription psychopharmacy.

Follow the tangent of the topic, it starts from this line
Reality check fails on a scale that is equal to Morgan.


Item 1. last year...the CNN piece
Item 2. 2011....the "reality check" Fox piece that line addresses
Item 3. 2009....Steves Daily Mail piece
Item 4. 2007.....Steves small arms survey from the Guardian

Simple isn't it.
post #88 does not show CNN to be incorrect it just makes the same mistake, post #94 does not show it to be incorrect either as it makes the same mistake twice.
If you want to show how Morgan misrepresented the figures you have to use the same figures from the same year using the same method.

Supplying other figures does nothing, the best way of showing Morgan was misrepresting is by simply saying that the US figures and the UK figures simply cannot be compared as they are crime statistics and come with a great big disclaimer saying they cannot be compared to others from different sources.

In case you missed it the Mail figures are made up by a political party trying to show how bad another political party is.

So you still have nothing to show.

Talk is cheap. You still haven't shown anything.

Then instead of prattling, point out exactly where in my link it is shown. You won't even do that.

So quit blathering and point it out.

When? You have referred over and over again to those links, saying they already show it, but you can't actually point it out.

Yes, I would like to read it. But you still haven't shown a single thing. All you've done is comment on the same thing without actually pointing it out.

So when you have nothing real to add, you go back to trolling.

So show us some numbers. You've still done nothing but critcize. But you haven't shown any numbers. You've commented on the numbers in the link, but you haven't once shown where they are wrong. In fact, you haven't done anything so far but fill the thread with hot air.

No please show something real or quit playing your games.

Just like you do every day on this forum, right?

You're right about it, missed the huge fonts in the headline. ;)

When checking the link again, I found a good example of different methods: in this link about Scotland's gun crime, we see that the Scottish police also puts crimes committed with air guns into the firearm crime category.

Answer the question.
I can quote your first link if you like in case you missed it.
"These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime."

Pretty simple no?
Did you also note that it was a politician gathering data from many differnet sources that are incomparable?

I could also point out your second link, but as I have already said it doesn't even have any UK numbers and you have refused to even acknoledge that very basic point.
Pretty hard to dispute Morgans UK figures from an article that is 5 years out and doesn't even feature the same country isn't it.

No Steve, a date is a date is a date, if you want to compare a years figures then they need to have a date that matches