NCclimber

Are you talking about this? If so, how about posting the "correct" homicide rates for the years '95-05, instead posting a bunch of pretty pictures that say nothing about the homicide rates. Next time, make sure you understand what I wrote before telling me I'm wrong.

I'm flattered.

Got a link? Specifically about their killing thousands because they wouldn't convert!!! That assertion is quite different from insurgents/rebels fighting authorities for autonomy.

Michele, It seems like your professor has clearly acted outside the parameters of his job description and used his lecturn as a bully pulpit. Additionally, he seems to have directed a number of personal attacks at you. If I was in your shoes, I would write up your account of what happened. do it while it's fresh in your memory. If you have any classmates, who you trust, ask them to read it over for accuracy. Then put it away and forget about it for now. Go study and do your best on your exams. Once your grade is posted, decide your course of action. If your grade is acceptable, you may want to let it slide or file a formal complaint. If you think you got a lower grade because of your politics, then find out what your options are. One other thing you might want to consider is apologizing to your professor. Without get into particulars, you could offer something along the lines of "I thought we had a pretty good relationship and I want to apologize for any part I played in turning it into a confrontational one". If he replies with criticisms... let them slide. It's pretty amazing how a simple apology can ease hostilities. Good luck.

Spin? I'm addressing consistent longer term trends, while seem intent on focussing on the last year or so. How do those findings you cite compare to the same data for the last decade?

Are you saying that violent crime would be EVEN HIGHER in the USA without guns? Not even John Rich claims that! Besides, whose data would you use? I was just countering one tangential sidebar with another. Well, since you have no actual data, it's about all you could do. You do have a knack for asserting a lie and making it sound plausible. Tsk, tsk. Pretty smarmy. But you don't have any actual data, and JR doesn't assert what you asserted, so where is the lie? YOU ARE WRONG!!! http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html If you read all of what you wrote, your lie would be pretty obvious. Comparing England vs. the US? Total Violent Crime in the US has fallen every year from it's high in 1993 to a record year low in 2002... and then made a new low in 2004. Currently levels are down almost 60 percent from 1993-94 levels! Additionally, the homicide rate in 2004 was down 42% from the 1993 level. The 2004 level matched the 2000 level, which was the lowest level since 1965. Meanwhile, the homicide rate in England and Wales climbed to an all-time high in 2000. Since then it has remained above the pre-2000 all-time high. In other words, the post 2000 low is greater than the pre-2000 high. And yes I know gun violence is higher in the US than in the UK. That doesn't changes the fact that violent crime and homicides are down at historic lows in the US and homicides are up at historic highs in the UK. These findings may seem counterintuitive to some, especially gun control advocates...... but there they are.

Are you saying that violent crime would be EVEN HIGHER in the USA without guns? Not even John Rich claims that! Besides, whose data would you use? I was just countering one tangential sidebar with another. Well, since you have no actual data, it's about all you could do. You do have a knack for asserting a lie and making it sound plausible. Tsk, tsk. Pretty smarmy.

According to who? Cite? Source please. Assoc.Press releases in FL, GA, & NY papers repeatedly, going back to Fathr's day weekend & then some "AP" releases If ya can't find them, in a paper near you: I'll be more then happy to mail you copies! Is this like "Let me tell about my wonderful grandchildren"?

WTF? Parachutist won't publish a picture that's been published somewhere else either (like, for instance, Skydiving). It's not unrealistic. If you can get it anywhere, why would you want to get their magazine? Wendy W. Do you really think Letters to the Editor are held to the same standards and copyright issues as photos?

What rationale for "accepting the OP's linked bullshit" are you talking about? Ah! Now you put the Proctor's hat back on. Excellent -- except it doesn't fit very well. Maybe you can get it resized at the costume shop you bought it from. Atta boy, Chester.

For such a high-standards quality control proctor, your rationale for accepting the OP's linked bullshit seems exceptionally low brow. What rationale for "accepting the OP's linked bullshit" are you talking about?

Funny how what people say gets frequently twisted.

SO? Authors who write poor quality or PREVIOUSLY REPORTED articles are generally refused publication in any reputable journal, and often get very disgruntled about it. Nature publishes a very small % of the articles submitted. This is evidence of nothing at all. I love their reasoning: WTF? Have you ever tried to get a letter or article published in Nature? If not, I suggest you first find out just how difficult it is before you waste a lot of sympathy on a whiner who was not published. Nature is under no obligation to publish every crank article it it receives. For such a well respected publication, their rationale for rejecting seems exceptionally low brow. Weak sauce.

Are you saying that violent crime would be EVEN HIGHER in the USA without guns? Not even John Rich claims that! Besides, whose data would you use? I was just countering one tangential sidebar with another.

Maybe as a stand alone statistic. But considering Total Violent Crime had fallen every year from it's high in 1993 to a record year low in 2002... and then made a new low in 2004, the rise in 2005 is not that significant... especially considering it's the 3rd lowest year in recent history. OK, lets compare long term on a statistic that is almost always reported correctly and consistently between different countries (according to the FBI): What is the rate of firearm homicides (homicides per 100,000 population) in the US compared to the UK over the last 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? Ditto for the rate of accidental firearms deaths? And while we're at it, let's compare the number times private citizens used guns to defend themselves against criminals, for those time periods. Nice try.

SO? Authors who write poor quality or PREVIOUSLY REPORTED articles are generally refused publication in any reputable journal, and often get very disgruntled about it. Nature publishes a very small % of the articles submitted. This is evidence of nothing at all. I love their reasoning: WTF?

Maybe as a stand alone statistic. But considering Total Violent Crime had fallen every year from it's high in 1993 to a record year low in 2002... and then made a new low in 2004, the rise in 2005 is not that significant... especially considering it's the 3rd lowest year in recent history.

Do any of these links give an overall picture of gun related crime? Like for the last 20 years (10 years w/ guns & 10 years w/out)? I ask because some the headlines in the OP look like cherry picked stats.

Dr. Art Robinson is an oxymoron and a crackpot. Do a little research and more than just the first few hits on Google. O.K. I guess I should dismiss those 17,200 people than signed as crackpots also. It must feel good to have Al Gore on your side instead of all those crackpots. I see you didn't take my advice and do any research on Dr. Art Robinson. His list was discredited years ago as being made of, in part, fictitious names. His original list contained several very famous names, Dr. B.J. Honeycut, Dr. Benjamin Franklin Pierce, Dr. Frank Burns . . . Maybe you remember those names from the TV series M.A.S.H.? I can not, in my wildest dreams, give him any credibility now. From the linked website:

Yep, those work. Although I heard from your sister that last one actually rhymes with "Oh god, right there, right there!" Yer mama was saying the same thing, just the other night. Note to Billvon: I know. I know. Cut it out. Both of us.

Were there 17,000 US scientists endorsing that practice?

Brit... twit... git... cl

Please explain the relevance of "a climber". You could have just said "if you are indeed from North Carolina". What was the climber part about? I read James J. Kilpatrick's column every week. You should check it out.

These are two separate states. Kinda like talking about all the white nation types in Seattle... cuz I got a third cuzin in Sandy Point, Idaho. Considering you regularly call me a neo-con (which is pure nonsense), I have a hard time taking your wild claims at face value.

What does being a climber have to do with what you are talking about? I was wondering the same thing.