Liberal Barbie's assertions have nothing to do with Vegas, thanks for proving him wrong. Barbie only wants to take pot shots at Republicans, no matter how many years back he has to go. As I initially stated, Fake News
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
There is lots of baloney on this mad person. No one goes that nuts without any previous signs of mental illness. His 'wife' and brother are lying; the probably have seen him go nuts before and since these wackos make these threats when very angry, yet do not act out, those who know him never believed he would really harm people. Believe me, he has shown his wacko side many times before, but no one took him seriously.
mental illness is the real problem. You need a gun control problem, look at the often occurrence of city gang violence.
Mental illness is the problem in these isolated travesties, not gun control.
mental illness is the real problem. You need a gun control problem, look at the often occurrence of city gang violence.
Mental illness is the problem in these isolated travesties, not gun control.
WizardofOz
New member
Let's take a look
You've moved the goal posts. The conversation with The Barbarian was about homicide rates. Now you're referencing "higher crime averages".
The link provided showed that (since 1950) the homicide rate was higher during Republican presidencies on average. Also, the homicide rate was lower under Clinton (7.3) than it was under Reagan (8.54) or H.W. Bush (9.3).
If you want to talk about "higher crime averages" then provide the numbers and define the scope. I am not even disputing your claim just noting that you clearly moved the topic from homicide rates to "higher crime averages", whatever that is even referring to.
Your source makes no claim that the September 11th attacks were included in the homicide rate for 2001. Please show that. From what I've read, they are not included. Did you notice that 2001 had no jump as you'd expect? The homicide rate in 2000 was 5.5, and then it was 5.6 in 2001 and 2002. With nearly one fifth of all homicides for the year happening in one day, you'd expect to see a jump.
There isn't one...
Or, those deaths were not included in the statistics. Which do you think is the more plausible explanation? :think:
Or, what was going on during Reagan and H.W. Bush's as far as homicides were concerned...The homicide rate was 9.8 the first year of Reagan's presidency. It went down to 8.4 in his last. The homicide rate was 8.7 during the first year of H.W. Bush's presidency. It went up to 9.2 during his final year as president. The homicide rate was 9.5 during the first year of Clinton's presidency. It went down to 5.5 during his final year.
That's quite a drop in the homicide rate, isn't it? What was going on during Clinton's presidency?
Why be so vague ("violence") when the discussion was already quite specific (homicide)?
The statistics do support that since 1950 the homicide rate was lower during Democrat administrations that it was during Republican ones.
You've only shown that when the data doesn't fit your narrative, you simply change the narrative.
WizardofOz
New member
Actually, after doing more number crunching from here, even this claim is not accurate.
If you are discussing all crime the average rates are as follows:
Reagan 5446.24
H.W. Bush 5779.73
Clinton 4894.31
If you are referring to all violent crime the average rates are as follows:
Reagan 583.24
H.W. Bush 727.63
Clinton 636.05
Looks like H.W. Bush had by far the most crime ridden presidency of the three. He presided over the highest murder rate, violent crime rate and general crime rate. Clinton was second in violent crime but Reagan was second in overall crime rates during their respective presidencies. Reagan also had a higher murder rate during his presidency when compared to Clinton's.
So, I am not sure what you are basing your clam on. :idunno:
Last edited:
Barbarian observes:
Nope. If you thought about it for a minute, you'd realize it was a dumb thing to do. The number of people killed in 9/11 was roughly 1/5 of the annual number of murders in the US. Roughly the difference between homicides in democrat administrations and republican administrations.
Which means that in order to make things even, there would have to be a 9/11 attack for every democrat president, every year. Gives you some idea of the scope of the difference, doesn't it?
Let's look at homicides (we were talking about those)...
Notice the homicide rate plunged during the Clinton administration. The decline first slowed and then leveled off in the Bush Administration, and then began to drop again after 2009.
Yep. So to catch up with the lower rate for democrats, (which average about 80% compared to republicans) there would have to be a 9/11 every year a democrat was in office.
They do show exactly that. Part of the reason, of course, is the huge drop in homicides during the Clinton administration, as you now realize.
Whatever Clinton did to lower homicides, and whatever Bush did to slow and then stop the decline,is arguable. That the decline happens in democrat administrations is not arguable.
Nope. If you thought about it for a minute, you'd realize it was a dumb thing to do. The number of people killed in 9/11 was roughly 1/5 of the annual number of murders in the US. Roughly the difference between homicides in democrat administrations and republican administrations.
Which means that in order to make things even, there would have to be a 9/11 attack for every democrat president, every year. Gives you some idea of the scope of the difference, doesn't it?
Let's look at homicides (we were talking about those)...
Notice the homicide rate plunged during the Clinton administration. The decline first slowed and then leveled off in the Bush Administration, and then began to drop again after 2009.
Yep. So to catch up with the lower rate for democrats, (which average about 80% compared to republicans) there would have to be a 9/11 every year a democrat was in office.
They do show exactly that. Part of the reason, of course, is the huge drop in homicides during the Clinton administration, as you now realize.
Whatever Clinton did to lower homicides, and whatever Bush did to slow and then stop the decline,is arguable. That the decline happens in democrat administrations is not arguable.
jsanford108
New member
The Wiz specializes in doing that
Reports say that Paddock also targeted aviation fuel tanks near the venue, trying to cause huge explosions.
WizardofOz
New member
[MENTION=19469]jsanford108[/MENTION] use / to close quotes not \
:e4e:
:e4e:
WizardofOz
New member
:allsmile:
He moved the goal posts (switching the conversation from homicide rates to "higher crime averages" midstream). My pointing it out is attacking his character? My, my. You are fragile indeed. Just like you have done, he is using imprecise language that confuses the conversation.
In the meantime...
I'm far from fragile and your M.O. is to misrepresent people. Anyway, jsanford exposed you again.:allsmile:
He moved the goal posts (switching the conversation from homicide rates to "higher crime averages" midstream). My pointing it out is attacking his character? My, my. You are fragile indeed. Just like you have done, he is using imprecise language that confuses the conversation.
In the meantime...
WizardofOz
New member
Then why do you cry so much?
:blabla:
Yet no one can quote me misrepresenting. Funny that. And, he didn't expose a thing. I simply showed statistics. Numbers don't lie
Unlike you...
Tinark
Active member
So anyone should be able to own tanks, B-52 bombers (with ammo), bunker buster bombs, ICBMs, tomahawk missles, etc?
Tinark
Active member
You and BLM have a lot more in common than you think.
There doesn't seem too be many pictures of this psycho. They keep showing the same 2 or 3 pictures
The test is whether or not the gun is used in militaries today and carried by individual warriors. Sawed-off shotguns are not used in any militaries, so the Second Amendment doesn't recognize the right to own a sawed-off shotgun. The founders intended "the right to keep and bear arms" to apply to the guns that individual warriors would themselves bear during a war. That's machine guns. That's not B-52s.