Dunblane shootings on ABC News....

if it's "apples and oranges" why did ABC bother?

First, its topical, current.

and second, it creates a discussion.

That is the reason for the majority of op/ed journalism,

is the reason for stories on the evening news? I doubt that, but if so, why not present the whole story?

I think you know as well as I that the reason they ran that story the way they did was to influence public opinion in a certain way.

Australia's PM... or at least they were the first I heard of this time around.

Are you suggesting they should have ignored such comments?

On the other hand... we all know why you are pointing out the comparison... to influence public opinion in a certain way.

I am suggesting that if they are going to tell the story that they tell the whole story, not just the half that fits their bias.

On the other hand... we all know why you are pointing out the comparison...

Okay, if we all know, tell me why you think that is. You might not be right in your assumption. Bear in mind that SE is not the evening news. I am not pretending to be a journalist or to be objective as they are. And I do mean pretending.

Others have the opportunity to oppose or disagree with me if they wish; that option doesn't exist on the nightly news.

public opinion as I am trying to point out that there is bias in the news and that there is more to the story than what they are telling us.

... but I asked a simple question and you have not even tried to address it.

"when mentioning an increase in Britain's violent crime there is no mention of what kind of violence. Is it beatings? Is it knifings? Is it shootings?"

You raised the question"fact" that violence is up in britain since the banning of all guns. However, you have yet to explain how that correlates to the gun ban.

I also asked if the statements by Australia's PM should be ignored?

other violent crime was mentioned in passing and doesn't really affect the thrust of my post. Similarly it is not up to me to explain what relation there might be between that and the gun laws. Do you think it is just a coincidence?

I could have said that an unarmed populace is an invitation to criminals to do as they please, but that is not my premise. I don't know what goes on in the mind of the British criminal. That is what ABC should have been exploring if they wanted to tell the whole story.

I am merely pointing out their slanted reporting.

What the PM of Australia or might not have said is also tangential. If you think it is vital, then you can post about it. I don't know what he said; you apparently do.

You raised the issue of crime violence in Britain as if it was significant but you refuse to say how or why?

I'm sorry but it is not up to me to substantiate your statements.

Didn't you notice the parentheses?. If you don't believe it you could look it up. I am confident you will find I was correct.

You have accused me many times of trying to read your mind and doing it poorly. Instead of playing a cat and mouse game state your case.

You see a news outlet trying to sway public opinion... I see a news outlet pandering to a public desire.

I personally see more danger in a presidential administration who stages a public event where you are required to sign a loyalty oath to gain admittance. That is a real, honest to god, example of bias.

I am NOT playing any games. I presented my case very clearly. If you don't want to understand, that is not my lookout.

If you couldn't tell exactly what I was getting at in my first post and then in later posts I can't help you. Obviously I have been talking about ABC's bias in this story from the gitgo and all along.

Have not been wandering at all. Yes, I am sure I have been straightforward the whole time.

Not at all.

Violent crime is violent crime and encompasses ALL such violent crime and in Britain as well as in Australia the violent crime rate has grown rapidly and its growth can be closely correlated with the essential banning of private ownership and use of accessible firearms.

Unable to respond to the actual posting you are trying (yet again) to cast Red Herrings. Something obviously fishy there and odious as well as oderous.

Your saying that violent crime has risen dramatically in Britain, yet you are giving no proof. The question in my mind is simply, why should we take your word on this matter.

I don't say this to be insulting, I ask this to simply gain some perspective on the matter since you have said my outlook is purposefully inaccurate. I just think that someone who says something like that about me should be able to back up their claims. After all, your the one who is basically calling me a liar. You should know... I am willing to be corrected if I'm wrong... I just don't cotton well to be called a scoundrel though.

try to stick to the issue, and that issue is that violent crime has increased in Great Britain and Australia and its increase can be correlated with their banning of essentially all privately owned and usable firearms.

Surely you are capable of discovering the dates of the bans and extrapolating from there (but judicious use of the information at these links -- so don't bother with the dates of some links -- will reduce your workload).

Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Britain: From Bad to Worse
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml

An international survey of gun laws and violent crime

Presented to the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology Nashville, TN November 2004

as Word Document - http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/asc/ASC2004/ASC2004_presentation.doc
as HTML -
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:25OzHXJPQREJ:www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/asc/ASC2004/ASC2004_presentation.doc+violent+crime%22+with+%22great+britain%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

National Experiences with Firearms Regulations:
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/asc/ASC2004/ASC2004_slideshow.ppt

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Gun ban' utopia creates violent crime increase
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/firearms/control/ukutopia.html

The correlation is there for anyone to see should they choose to discard their blinders.

those are just "Right wing extremist wacko gun nut" sites.

At least he has something more than snide comments to back up what he has to say.

You wouldn't happen to have the lecture notes that go with the powerpoint, do you Ed?

By the by Ed... you do realize I am in favor of private gun ownership? I just question some of the correlation's that are made by those trying to prove that private gun ownership go hand in hand with decreased crime rates.

As far as the red hearing BS... I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by that.

Number of Murderers = Number of murders

3 people murder 1 person = 3 murders?

"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.

Three people commit a crime (but they are not charged/ found guily) counts as a "three person homicide".

If not found guilty, and the people that commited the murder not found, couldn't they pick any number of not guilty individuals?

Have you ever seen statistics broken down to describe Murders by the number of people that commit the murder?

That's the way it works man! That is why a kid with a pound of mexican dirt weed gets busted for holding $100,000.00 worth of pot. It's why kids busted for selling sheets of blotter acid at grateful dead shows 15 years ago are still doing time for the weight of the paper while child molesters walk free.

If your not sure how american statistics work give me a call and I'll explain it to you.

Of course 2 of those murderers will get off by agreeing to testify against the one too slow to turn in the others... but that's the way prosecutors get reelected.


I do give credit to Ed for giving us more than lip service. Not that he needs for me to give him credit.

Some of his data was quite interesting. The powerpoint presentation would be quite interesting if we had the lecture transcript that goes with it.

Count the number of bodies (the dead ones) then multiply by the number of possible killers and arrive at a number. And call this the number of homicides?

EX

1 body * 3 possible killers = 3 homicides

In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide,

I've seen charts that list homicides, but none listing person/homicides.

Never mind comparing US figures with another country, Not much sense in keeping any statistics if that is the method used.

I know about other participants turning in other participants

With homicide being pointedly singular in the passage you attempt to misrepresent it is impossible to actually arrive at the conjecture you posit.
"Number of Murderers = Number of murders

3 people murder 1 person = 3 murders?

As was clearly indicated a singular murder can have one or many murderers and in the US it is noted as a single crime committed by multiple persons while the British simply avoid using the murder in their stats at all. In short, as the passage makes clear, direct comparisons of the statistics between the US and GB provide a false view in favor of GB because the US stats include the crime while GB stats do not which falsely inflates the US stats.

Have you ever seen statistics broken down to describe Murders by the number of people that commit the murder?

Yes, and they are relatively common because crimes tend to be broken down in multiple ways to enable various views into possible causation. (hint - think gang activies)

Shows just how inaccurate the press can be in understanding how a foreign culture works. Statements made by European governments mirroring these opinions leads on to also think about how far off opinion can be from fact.


Since this is the clearly demonstrated case... then how can we assume that out own press and government is that much better in understanding foreign cultures? I mean if Britain can be so far off as to how we need to solve our societal problems here in the US... then how can we assume we are spot on about Iraq?

After all... we were told that The Thing needed most to stabilize Iraqi society was free elections...

The chart looks to me like there was a substantial increase then a decline. If there is NOT a problem, why is the BBC running a story about the problem? "a new task force set up to tackle a spate of fatal shootings in south London."

At the very best it demonstrates that the law had no affect. Or is it only that these were not mass school shootings?

If I may venture an opinion, I think if someone in England is determined to massacre a whole lot of people, he will find a way, regardless of the laws. They are whistling in the dark if they think the law is what accounts for there not being any massacres lately.