Re: "Gun deaths are rare in Japan due to the nation's strict gun control"

Phil Smythe wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:01 am, Magus <n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil Smythe wrote:
On Jan 19, 6:18 pm, Magus <n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil Smythe wrote:
On Jan 18, 3:47 pm, Magus <n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil Smythe wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:18 pm, Magus <n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Murder rate rises in Japan but total crimes fall
The Associated Press
Published: January 15, 2009
TOKYO: The number of murder cases jumped more than 8 percent in Japan
last year, despite an overall drop in the crime rate in the country,
which has long boasted of low crime, the National Police Agency said
Thursday.
The agency said that 1.8 million crimes took place last year — down
4.7 percent from a year earlier — with burglaries making up the
largest proportion, accounting for 76 percent of total crimes. It
marked the sixth year in which crime has fallen in Japan.
The number of serious violent offenses, which includes murder, rape
and arson, declined 5.1 percent to 8,588. But murder cases alone rose
8.4 percent to 1,300 from last year — though they still accounted for
less than 1 percent of all crime.
Gun deaths are rare in Japan due to the nation's strict gun control.
The agency did not have annual data, but shooting deaths accounted for
only 1.2 percent of the total killings in the six months to September
2008. Most cases of gun violence are gang-related.
Troll Phil Smythe would have you believe that the number of gun deaths
in Japan is rare BECAUSE of gun control.
The article he quoted states that. However, that's the reason Phil chose it.
At least you understand the difference between what I say and what I
quote someone else saying. Could you pass on your wisdom to some of
your mentaly challenged compatriots?
Normally I read the entire post before responding.
For Phil it's all about murder using a gun. The article he cited states
that murder cases rose 8.4 percent. To him, it seemingly doesn't matter
how people are killed, as long as it's not with a gun.
Bullshit. I've posted copious amounts of data in this ng regarding
murder by means other than guns. This IS a gun group so why so
surprised when gyuns are mentioned?
Not bullshit. From your posting history, you key in on the mention of
fewer gun deaths as if it's your life's blood while ignoring any rise
murders overall.
It is absolute bullshit and you've clearly made no effort to verify
what I claimed.
That sentence makes absolutely no sense in the context of this thread.
You made no claim in the original post so why would I make an effort to
verify any claim?
It is YOU making no sense.
YOU stated "To him, it seemingly doesn't matter how people are killed,
as long as it's not with a gun."to which I directly replied "
Bullshit. I've posted copious amounts of data in this ng regarding
murder by means other than guns." YOU then came back with " Not
bullshit."
I said a bit more than "Not bullshit", but I'll disregard your lack of
context and attempt at misdirect. I'll state again, that even though you
post copious amounts of fluff here in this group, you key in on mention
of "fewer gun deaths".

So? Do you think the majority of posters here (pro-gunners) are going
to venture this information? I make no apology for posting articles
that highlight falls in deaths by way of guns.


Looks like you're starting to get it Phil, you key in on and highlight anything dealing with fewer gun deaths. I pointed that out. Everything else you've brought into this thread was and is not relevant to that and appears to come from you need to prove everyone who doesn't agree with you wrong.



I said your claim about me only caring if people are killed with a gun
was "bullshit" but when you stated it was "not bullshit" that was a
clear indication you had not bothered to verify the true situation. Or
perhaps you just lied.
So which is it?
However, I do read this group regularly, am very familiar with your
participation here, and stated my observation was based on "your posting
history".
You state above that you've "posted copious amounts of data in this ng
regarding murder by means other than guns." I never said you hadn't, I
said you "key in on the mention of fewer gun deaths" not that you only
post about it.
See above where you DID suggest I only talk about gun deaths.

I'm looking above... looking... looking... Nope, not there.

So if I don't only talk about gun deaths what is your point? You
grizzle when I post articles about gun deaths, but that is an entirely
relevant discussion point. Or are you just having a general whinge?


My point was your motive in selecting the subject line.

However, now we've traded several posts where I've explained that over and over while you have jumped around accusing me of many different things--all those accusations are because of your lack of understanding.

Was I surprised guns were mentioned or is that your strawman?
Surprised that guns are mentioned in talk.politics.guns? You need to
check your medication.
Was I surprised that guns were mentioned? Nothing I posted related in
any way to any surprise on my part. You invented that strawman; your
words, still contained above, "This IS a gun group so why so surprised
when gyuns are mentioned?" What happened? Forget you built that strawman?
So this ISN'T a gun group?
Phil, you stated "This IS a gun group so why so surprised when gyuns are
mentioned?" I said, "Was I surprised?" You went on to say I need to
check my medication because I was surprised.

You want to go over this more? I never showed surprise, that I did is
your strawman.

Sure I'll go on. WHAT is your problem when I post gun related matter
in a gun related group? You say weren't surprised this is a gun group,
so why the problem when gun related material is posted?


Again Phil, I never stated I had a problem whit the article you posted, not for content or relevance to this group. I've told you this before and I'm telling you again.

Look at which sentence Phil chose as the title for his post: "Gun deaths
are rare in Japan due to the nation's strict gun control."
A gun linked header in a gun linked group! How outrageous!
A cherry picked sentence from an article that was not about "Gun deaths
are rare in Japan due to the nation's strict gun control." The title was
actually "Murder rate rises in Japan but total crimes fall".
That's why I highlighted the fact you specifically chose that particular
sentence as a post title--it related to your motive.
My motive was to highlight commentary related DIRECTLY to the object
of this group, gun politics. But then again, your unsure if this is a
gun group or not.
It very well could have been. I posted what seemed to be your motive
based on title choice, actual article content, and your posting history.

You don't like how others perceive you, maybe you should work on that.

I could care less how others perceive me. That you don't appear to
like my posting style doesn't worry me either.


Really? How many posts have we exchanged no that very issue now? I don't believe you.

Then look at the very first sentence of the body of the article: "The
number of murder cases jumped more than 8 percent in Japan last year..."
Gee whiz, Phil forgot to snip out something I presume he doesn't like!
Do I presume you don't like it? Or was I just pointing out the contrast
between how the article lead off and your choice of title? It was
evidence of the motive I'd attributed to you.
As above, this is a gun politics group and I highlighted the gun
politics part of the article. Surely that is right and proper or
perhaps you'd prefer I be like the trolls in tpg who post endlessly on
off topic subjects, eg "Stand up for Palestine ..."and "Obama is No
Lincoln", both recent entries. If you're unhappy with me, despite me
being on topic, why haven't you vented your rage at the originators of
those threads and the numerous other OT topics?
Phil, you're the only one venting any rage here. All I've done is make a
post about you concerning what seemed to be your motive. Then I've
answered each of your challenges even though you've gone off track,
created strawmen, attempted to redirect away from what I said, or
misrepresented what I've said. /Up until this point/ I haven't called
you names, I haven't used any profanity, I haven't insulted your
character, accused you of being on medication, or challenged your
understanding of group topic. The only thing I have done is accuse you
of having a specific bias.

You are LYING now. You wrote, verbatim, "Phil doesn't care about other
affects--it's only "gun deaths" he's interested in and he will cherry
pick all the data to find anything supposedly supporting his view."
You claim above "The only thing I have done is accuse you of having a
specific bias." which as shown is FALSE, you claimed I don't "care
about other affects--it's only "gun deaths" he's interested in".


And that would be the specific bias I've accused you of having. You have several others as well that I didn't bring up, I didn't say it was your only bias by any means.

What I did was make a post about your choice of thread subject and your
possible motive in choosing the particular sentence--that you don't like
being called out about it is understandable.

Well Dr Freud, you've made your point. You can now bow out.

I'm not Dr. Freud.

I "can now bow out". Phil, are you trying to say that I have the ability to bow out or I have permission to bow out?

If you're saying I have the ability [can], I've always had the ability I haven't had the inclination.

If you're trying to give me permission, you should have used "may".

.

Relevant Pages