Piers Morgan's gun control views lead to petition for deportation

BTW Steve how about an answer to the bonus question.

Hey Steve, as a bonus question how does the politicians made up figures from the second article link directly back to Ben Swanns boss?

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Follow the words, it is easy.

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

Mixed years cannot match for a measure, different methodologies cannot match for a measure, Yemen cannot be included at all in figures due to the nature of the state for the past 20+years, attempting to do so is making a misrepresentation.
Though the most blatent example of misrepresentation occurs right at the start with the different British figures where they make a misrepresentation to show that CNN made a misrepresentation with their British figures.

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

Look at the source of the numbers the Daily Mail is using.
Is it another case of you not reading what your links actually say?
It really is a classic Daily Mail, they build up the story, then tucked away is the detail that says it isn't really a real story

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.

You really are having difficulty Steve, you follow with a good example of the difficulty you are having.....

So actually show something.

What he said was very simple, I cannot believe you are able to so badly comprehend such a simple statement.
The statement only covers the massaging of figures to make a misrepresntation which was present in the piece. For balance the same occured in the CNN piece where nutcase removed one section of figures he wanted to compare while not removing the corresponding section from the other figures.

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?
It is all in the article if you piece it together

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.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I completely agree. Jones is a blight on pretty much everything.

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

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So you believe that justifiable homicides should be counted as handgun murders? That, I think, is more bizarre than what you're condemning. How many violent crimes in Britain are justifiable homicides? How many shootings? How many muggings?

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).

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

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

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

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

But you can't actually show this detail?

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.

So actually show something.

Done

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

Wow
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.

Originally Posted by Penguin

No, this was not my point.

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

[Takeda Shingen]

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.

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.

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

[Julhelm]

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 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.

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

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

So you still have nothing to show.

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

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

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.

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

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.

So quit blathering and point it out.

Done

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

Wow
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.

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.

Would you like a date again darling?

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

thats a funny thing with numbers in it, different numbers mean different things, complicated isn't it...or is it really simple.

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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.

So you still have nothing to show.

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.

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

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