Butters 0 #26 December 21, 2006 QuoteHere goes Kallend again bragging about the very controversial decline of murders in Chicago. There has been much made of faulty reports and the accidental death classifications over the last few years in Chicago. Living in the Chicagoland area the last several years, I have heard many reports of Family members claiming there loved ones murder was classified as an accidental death. For those outside the Chicagoland area check out this clip for a sample of what is really going on here. http://cbs2chicago.com/video?id=27651@wbbm.dayport.com Murder has a negative connotation so to be more politically correct they call it an accidental death. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #27 December 21, 2006 QuoteChicago's went down 4.3%. Funny shit Kallend. I have a hard time believing that you actually believe that yourself. To many instances of corruption to believe in Chicago's murder rate. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 December 21, 2006 QuoteSo when a visitor to any city is murdered, that should not be counted? Where did I say that? QuoteWhy are all these Louisianans so dangerous anyway I'm sure some aren't... unfortunately, some are...and are making a definite contribution to the crime rate in Houston and other cities. Quotedon't they have CCW in Louisiana? They do... those are among the ones that most likely AREN'T contributing to the crime rate...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #29 December 21, 2006 QuoteI gave you my actual opinion and you cut it out of your reply and then accused me of not answering. You need to try harder than that. Sure kallend. You wanted to blame cuts in federal crime money for the crime increase, so that's why you started a thread with a message implying that concealed handgun carry was to blame. This is an example of the kinds of illogical and deceitful games you play on this issue. Because of this, you have no credibility on the subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #30 December 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteI gave you my actual opinion and you cut it out of your reply and then accused me of not answering. You need to try harder than that. Sure kallend. You wanted to blame cuts in federal crime money for the crime increase, so that's why you started a thread with a message implying that concealed handgun carry was to blame. This is an example of the kinds of illogical and deceitful games you play on this issue. Because of this, you have no credibility on the subject. So you think I'm following in your footsteps - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, they say. (Just count the number of threads which you have started about crime in the UK). Do you want to tell us again about "more guns less crime".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #31 December 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteHere goes Kallend again bragging about the very controversial decline of murders in Chicago. There has been much made of faulty reports and the accidental death classifications over the last few years in Chicago. Living in the Chicagoland area the last several years, I have heard many reports of Family members claiming there loved ones murder was classified as an accidental death. For those outside the Chicagoland area check out this clip for a sample of what is really going on here. http://cbs2chicago.com/video?id=27651@wbbm.dayport.com Murder has a negative connotation so to be more politically correct they call it an accidental death. Interesting that you'd believe the unsubstantiated suppositions of the "liberal media" over data from the FBI. Oh well, if it supports your position...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #32 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteSure kallend. You wanted to blame cuts in federal crime money for the crime increase, so that's why you started a thread with a message implying that concealed handgun carry was to blame. This is an example of the kinds of illogical and deceitful games you play on this issue. Because of this, you have no credibility on the subject. Do you want to tell us again about "more guns less crime". Yet more deceit on your part. Go look some more at what I've said on that subject. I don't argue for that view at all. In fact, I point out that I don't think there is any relationship to gun ownership rates and crime rates at all - they move up and down independent of each other. And I've so stated that numerous times. I've even stated that specifically to you before. For example, right here. Do try and keep my positions straight. You just descended another notch in credibility, trying to foist this false position upon me, in the eyes of the readers here. Since you can't seem to remember correctly what others have said in the past, perhaps you should stick to expressing your own views, instead of trying to put words into the mouths of others. I know you hate to do that though, because then you might have to actually defend your own positions, instead of just sitting on the sidelines and throwing rocks at others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #33 December 22, 2006 So you are no longer a disciple of John "More Guns, Less Crime" Lott? Well, that's a change for the better. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=791376#791376 and some dozen other places where you have pushed his thesis. Last time you called me a liar you were quite unable, when challenged, to provide a link to a post where I had written what you claimed I had written. Are you sure you want to get into an argument about credibility?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #34 December 22, 2006 Quote You wanted to blame cuts in federal crime money for the crime increase, so that's why you started a thread with a message implying that concealed handgun carry was to blame. This is an example of the kinds of illogical and deceitful games you play on this issue. Because of this, you have no credibility on the subject. Of course, you'd never start a thread anything like this or this. Whhoossshhh... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
