Yeah, both people making claims about crime rates could do with offering a few citations.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year

Homicides and Violent Crime Have Dropped 50% Over the Last 20 Years

I have the links on my laptop but the US stats came from Nibbles favored site: FBI.gov. The UK stats came from the British Crime Survey.

Here's a link for the UK numbers tho:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...n-in-u-s-.html

Where's the link showing crime has risen overall under Obama?

Violent Crime in U.S. Rises for First Time Since 2006

I will grant you that most of the increased crime and murdering has been done by the White house

So you meant it went up a bit one year but it's still down overall?

Well, firstly, this seems to contradict this:

...and I'm not seeing where any of this contradicts rjoefish's comparative claim re: US/UK rate of decline.

Edit:

So when you said 'there has been a general rise in crime' you meant 'there was a rise in crime one year' and/or 'certain specific crimes were committed'.

Mostly I was was jerking your chain for worshiping a murderous piece of garbage. But yeah Overall crime is still down but has trended up slightly since Obomber took over ****ing us.

rjoes only cite at this point comes from Bloomberg and the article is citing a leftwing think tank as its source...

Look who is just making **** up lol

"yeah it's down overall but it's up!"

Thanks obama

Is Éireannach mise; is Eorpach mise. Je suis irlandais; je suis européen. Ich bin irisch; ich bin europäisch.

So crime 'has trended up slightly' as in, 'There was a year when crime rates rose' or as in 'Crime has been trending up since some point after Obama's inauguration'? Pick one of those, if you wouldn't mind.

Has gone up and continues to go up due to recession. Violent crime less than theft etc.

Again I was mostly taking cheap shot at rjoe for being an Obama nuthugger.

FYP

How about you cite that crime has gone up and continues to go up. Be very specific please.

For everyone else:

fbi.gov

QED MOTHER****ER

Nibs

UMMMM NO and its not even ****ing close.

That picture is pretty accurate, but in describing both parties. It's almost comical to watch both parties argue for things they were against under a different president.

Oh ****, hope I don't get banned for saying that.

Pilkain did you ever describe how/when you changed your mind on supporting the AWB?

Yeah it is. Hypocrisy has it's lighter side.

Not on this forum.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using 2+2 Forums

I have changed my mind a few times really. I think assault weapon is an inaccurate term and renewing the awb would do little to curb violence.

At some point I decided it would be a good idea to just pass the awb to try to do anything to end all of the massacres that were occurring. In reality it will probably not pass because of the political climate.

What I really want to happen is to balance the right to bear arms with our need to stop senseless deaths. I believe that is possible but the debate is so polarized that each side gets angry and does not listen to reason.

What are your thoughts on how this could be accomplished?

Real dialogue where both sides acknowledge the validity of the point of view of the other side. On one side we have a problem with loss of human life and on the other we have a Constitutional right valued by many of our citizens. These two issues stir emotions in people that leads to the breakdown of rational discussion.

This thread is the perfect example. The infamous dbj makes a thread ridiculing gun control advocates and riverman responds with this thread.

Does riverman believe that the second amendment is invalid? Do gun rights advocates disregard the importance of human life? I think the real answer is no but it often seems to be yes.

The answer to your question is that we need both sides to agree that the point of view of the other side is valid and from there try to find a solution that works for both sides.

Ok... I agree that for any dialoge to work you have to be able to see the other sides point of view. But some points of view are inherently false and unworthy of consideration, now what?