Drive by shooting in Australian suburb of Perth...

[spookyturtle 9,466]

More kids have die in Chicago than Australia, UK, Canada and New Zealand combined.

You still stand by that one, huh?

Yes. It was a guess but I am sure it's correct.

Recent homicide statistics for Chicago:

2000: 628

2001: 666

2002: 647

2003: 598

2004: 448

2005: 449

2006: 467

2007: 442

2008: 510

Homicides in the UK alone:

March 2002 - March 2003 = 1,048 - (876)

This includes 172 attributed to Harold Shipman

March 2003 - March 2004 = 853

March 2004 - March 2005 = 868

2005 - 2006 = 765

includes 54 victims of the July bombings in London

March 2006 - March 2007 = 759

March 2007 - March 2008 784

On an annualized basis, the UK ALONE (let alone adding in Canada, Aus, NZ) has more murders per year than does the city of Chicago.

Now, don't get me wrong - Chicago's murder rate is dreadful, a real stain on the city. But your statement is false. Provably, demonstrably false.

Perhaps what you meant to say is per-capita homicides?

As in -- Chicago has more murders each year per 100,000 population than do any of UK, Canada, Aus, NZ. That is true. Very sad, but true.

You lie scandal.

[Heracles 417]

More kids have die in Chicago than Australia, UK, Canada and New Zealand combined.

You still stand by that one, huh?

Yes. It was a guess but I am sure it's correct.

But your statement is false. Provably, demonstrably false.

You lie scandal.

There is a word up there that is missing from all of these stats. Kids killed by kids or even kids killed alone.

I never said homicides in general

Edited October 9, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

But you still haven't provided any source to substantiate your claim.

[HYENA 4]

He got the information from me. I am the ultimate source of statistics. I answer to none, as my numbers will never lie.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't know. There is 24 hours worth.

Show me precisely where I was racist. Disagreeing with me hardly qualifies for a racist label.

You mean historically, or just in this thread?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'm still interested in seeing this claim substantiated.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When you describe someone as having a "negative strike" against them for marrying a hispanic person and describing another hispanic person as a "bowl cut inca" - well the least you can say is that there's some obvious bigotry at work.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, but it's not racism because BY believes his fatally flawed interpretation of the available statistics

[Heracles 417]

I don't know. There is 24 hours worth.

Show me precisely where I was racist. Disagreeing with me hardly qualifies for a racist label.

You mean historically, or just in this thread?

Based on the comments he posted.

Yes, but it's not racism because BY believes his fatally flawed interpretation of the available statistics

Which statistics have I been wrong on?

I'm still interested in seeing this claim substantiated.

That is actually how I found the other graph to roll pike here.

I did find some interesting stats involving minorities and homicide, which I have been shot down for in the past and accused of "making it up". Like AA male being 7.8 times more likely to murder someone than a Caucasian.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Booyah!

[Peikko 1,575]

Your interpretation of what any set of statistics means is always flawed BY.

[Heracles 417]

Your interpretation of what any set of statistics means is always flawed BY.

Which ones? I this case I am willing to bet, on a hunch, that more kids are killed in Chicago than the UK, Aus and New Zealand combined.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your interpretation of what any set of statistics means is always flawed BY.

And a recipe for disaster.

[Heracles 417]

Your interpretation of what any set of statistics means is always flawed BY.

And a recipe for disaster.

First off, at least I have posted stats. Your first stat post ever was just in the other thread. Nevertheless, which stats are wrong? To the contrary, it's you guys who refuse to accept them.

Like the following homicide rate: (Per 100,000)

Whites: 4.8

Blacks: 36.9

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.

Rather than accept the stats, you will talk about causation and other #######. Cunningly diverting attention from the stats and then 'claim' I don't know how to 'interpret them'.

[Peikko 1,575]

The stats are what they are BY but your interpretation of them is, well, maliciously motivated is the kindest thing I can come up with.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your interpretation of what any set of statistics means is always flawed BY.

And a recipe for disaster.

First off, at least I have posted stats. Your first stat post ever was just in the other thread. Nevertheless, which stats are wrong? To the contrary, it's you guys who refuse to accept them.

Like the following homicide rate: (Per 100,000)

Whites: 4.8

Blacks: 36.9

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.

Rather than accept the stats, you will talk about causation and other #######. Cunningly diverting attention from the stats and then 'claim' I don't know how to 'interpret them'.

But you don't BY.

We already went through this months ago when you posted those figures about the top ranked poorest cities not being exactly in line with the most crime ridden.

You take isolated statistics and try to draw unreasonably wild conclusions from them.