Slashdot Mirror

http://baltimore.areaconnect.c...

Baltimore is also 64% black...so I would expect the police to use the Stingrays in predominately black neighborhoods more often.

That is likely because they can leave those cities to get those guns.

Now go compare to other countries like EU nations that have strict national gun control.

This doesn't make sense. Why aren't the places the criminals supposedly go to get the guns awash in crime, if availability of guns is the problem? It's hard to get a gun in Chicago, yet Chicago has more gun violence than anywhere else in the US. Across the state line and a couple of hours down the road from Chicago, it's very easy to get a gun in Lafayette, IN. In fact, in Indiana it's quite arguably easier for someone with no criminal record to get a gun than for someone with a criminal record to get a gun. In Chicago, I'm certain it's the reverse.

Lafayette is below the national average for violent crime; Chicago is nearly twice the national average (http://lafayettein.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm , http://chicago.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm ).

So if it's the easy availability of guns that causes the violent crime, then why is it that, in America, it's the places where guns are least available that are the most violent and, in America, it's the places where guns are most available that have the least violent crime, lower than many European countries.

http://newarknj.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm

It bothers me for my black friends and I hate to be one of those guys, but when I watch the news it's often black male youth committing the crimes around my town. If you look at this Newark's demographics, it is over 53% black, less than 27% white, with other races mixed in at small amounts. Is this more of the poor black on black crime problems?

If the cops just asked him to leave, it would have been trivial for him to go back to his hotel room, change out of the PedoBear suit, change back into street clothes, then return to the Con and track down somebody with some kind of authority to plead his case. Comic-Con isn't as uptight as this story makes it sound. I wouldn't have been surprised if they let him wear the suit if he promised to stick to the alternative comics alley or something, instead of the front lobby.

TFA is also sort of stupid for talking about "police" as if they're one, monolithic organization. This description of what happened at Comic-Con was written by San Luis Obispo County sheriffs ... who weren't there. San Diego County has its own sheriff's department and San Diego City has its own police department. It may also be worth noting that San Luis Obispo county has lower incidence of most types of crimes than the national average ... except rapes.

Where I live, anyone trying that would simply be shot. Robberies (esp. with knives) aren't so common here in states where you don't know who's carrying a gun. But I guess in states or countries where you're not legally allowed to defend yourself, that could be a problem.

I take it you do not live in Detroit or Camden?

Arguably they have a higher population to gun to person ration anywhere else in the nation, but for some reason robbery and violence seems to be a problem.

And I've got 2006 numbers for you (I'm sure more recent are out there but those two cities haven't really improved much):

http://detroit.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Detroit&s1=MI&c2=Camden&s2=NJ

http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Chicago&s1=IL&c2=Los+Angeles&s2=CA

Kiss my Angeleno ass. Los Angeles has lower rates of murder, robbery, assault, theft, and burglary.

When Los Angeles, gang ridden shit hole that is, has a not just a lower crime rate, but fewer actual crimes despite its larger population, than your city, you need to shut up.

Well, in this particular instance, its just complete and utter garbage.

There's about 1 million people living in detroit and about 400 murders per year. That's fairly bad.

Here's a link to 2006's muder rate: http://detroit.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm -- it was actually less than 400 in 2007. So we'll just say, about 400.

Now what someone is saying, when they make up a bullshit statistic like this one, is that there were fewer than 400 SOLDIERS killed. This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. This would be like comparing the number of police killed in Detroit to soldiers dead in Iraq, not civilians to soldiers. But moreover, there are about 8 times more people in Detroit than soldiers in ALL OF IRAQ -- and far fewer than that in just Baghdad. So of course, on a per capita basis, its just nonsense to say its "more dangerous" in detroit. Complete nonsense.

There have been over 29 civilians CONFIRMED as killed in the past WEEK (from last friday to this thursday) in baghdad. Just one week. At that rate, we're looking at about 1500 per year. Way higher than Detroit in a city with a much smaller population.

It turns out, that's a *GOOD* week. Check this out

From April 14th to 31st August, 2,846 violent deaths were recorded by the Baghdad city morgue. When corrected for pre-war death rates in the city a total of at least 1,519 excess violent deaths in Baghdad emerges from reports based on the morgue's records.

And last year? Try over 20 thousand confirmed civilian deaths. It's no wonder the fighting has died down since the surge -- there's hardly anyone left to kill. All the neighborhoods are now completely segregated because anyone who didn't flee is dead. That's one way to put an end to ethnic infighting -- not the one I would have chosen.

Nevertheless, suggesting the murder rate in Baghdad is less than Detriot for any period of time in the last 50 years is just a ridiculous joke. Like I said, the only way you could come even close to such a ridiculous number is if you ONLY COUNT American troop deaths in Baghdad. The most up to date information I could find suggests that we have roughly about 13,500 of our troops in Iraq in Baghdad. This falls WAY short of the 1 million people in Detroit. So saying that fewer of those 1 million people were shot than of the 13,500 troops is saying very, very, very little. It's per capita that matters here and that clearly has been ignored.

That's how easy it is to make a statistic lie -- thus explaining your Twain quote.

Statistically, I would be safer in any major European city than any major US city. Including the UK.

Let's take a look at a typical UK city, say, Manchester and compare it to a typical US city, say, New York, and a violent city, like Saint Louis. In Saint Louis, crime in 2006 was 14228.6 per one hundred thousand. In Greater Manchester, crime in 2005 was roughly 1110 per one hundred thousand, with a population around 2.55 million. (This information might very well be apples to oranges, but is police report to police report.) In New York, the number is 2,487.6 per hundred one thousand.

I'm having difficulty finding the exact US federal statistics for crime all over the US, but I imagine it's worse than in the UK. It's just safer there. And don't live in Saint Louis. Someone will kick your ass.

Why did you choose Seattle as the comparison spot instead of Redmond itself?
http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Redmond&s1=WA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA shows quite a bit of a difference than your Seattle link.

First, while I am not a staunch defender of the California bay area (even though I am living here for now), Oakland is the city you move to if you are interested in significantly increasing your risk. San Francisco is not without problems, but the crime rate difference is noteworthy.

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Oakland&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

Of course, New York is a bit safer than San Francisco in a general sense...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=New+York&s1=NY&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

However, you are trading murder for carjacking and other items in Seattle...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Seattle&s1=WA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

Finally, they could always try to live in somewhere like Berkeley...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Berkeley&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

A much better reason though for not moving here is the hyperinflation of the cost of housing has not subsided-the bubble is in full effect here.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/14/real_estate/first_ quarter_NAR_prices/index.htm?postversion=200705151 4

First, while I am not a staunch defender of the California bay area (even though I am living here for now), Oakland is the city you move to if you are interested in significantly increasing your risk. San Francisco is not without problems, but the crime rate difference is noteworthy.

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Oakland&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

Of course, New York is a bit safer than San Francisco in a general sense...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=New+York&s1=NY&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

However, you are trading murder for carjacking and other items in Seattle...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Seattle&s1=WA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

Finally, they could always try to live in somewhere like Berkeley...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Berkeley&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

A much better reason though for not moving here is the hyperinflation of the cost of housing has not subsided-the bubble is in full effect here.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/14/real_estate/first_ quarter_NAR_prices/index.htm?postversion=200705151 4

First, while I am not a staunch defender of the California bay area (even though I am living here for now), Oakland is the city you move to if you are interested in significantly increasing your risk. San Francisco is not without problems, but the crime rate difference is noteworthy.

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Oakland&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

Of course, New York is a bit safer than San Francisco in a general sense...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=New+York&s1=NY&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

However, you are trading murder for carjacking and other items in Seattle...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Seattle&s1=WA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

Finally, they could always try to live in somewhere like Berkeley...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Berkeley&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

A much better reason though for not moving here is the hyperinflation of the cost of housing has not subsided-the bubble is in full effect here.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/14/real_estate/first_ quarter_NAR_prices/index.htm?postversion=200705151 4

First, while I am not a staunch defender of the California bay area (even though I am living here for now), Oakland is the city you move to if you are interested in significantly increasing your risk. San Francisco is not without problems, but the crime rate difference is noteworthy.

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Oakland&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

Of course, New York is a bit safer than San Francisco in a general sense...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=New+York&s1=NY&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

However, you are trading murder for carjacking and other items in Seattle...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Seattle&s1=WA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

Finally, they could always try to live in somewhere like Berkeley...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Berkeley&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA

A much better reason though for not moving here is the hyperinflation of the cost of housing has not subsided-the bubble is in full effect here.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/14/real_estate/first_ quarter_NAR_prices/index.htm?postversion=200705151 4

http://clevelandoh.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

Uh... no. Chicago is about 3 times as dangerous by every stat here:

http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=ne w+york&s1=NY&c2=chicago&s2=IL

Fairbanks seems to have a relatively high overall crime rate, but the rates for murder and burglaries are below the national average. Could that be the criminals are reluctant to commit violent crimes due to the likelihood of an armed response?

I also don't buy for a second the idea that the Second Amendment is meant for anyone other than private citizens. The Second Amendment says "the right of the people" not "the right of the militia".

You need to read the amendment again.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Read it. Read it carefully. And most importantly, read it all.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is one clause in a longer sentence specifically relating to the necessity of a well regulated "free state" militia. It is neither the focus of the amendment, nor is it an individual "right" that you can pull out of the amendment. It does not stand on its own; it is not separated by a semi-colon or a period. It is separated by commas, as part of a sentence establishing well regulated militias. It is not a clause that exists in the absence of context.

I realize that various people, including branches of our own government, have interpreted it differently over the years. But it is pretty unambiguous if you ask me, and I don't see how you even could interpret it in any other way than was intended - unless you had some personal or vested interest in misinterpreting it. If you enjoy gun collecting and have spent $50,000 on your gun collection, what are you going to think that amendment says? You're going to think it supports your "right" to have such a gun collection, because you don't want $50,000 worth of stuff taken away from you. You're going to read it in a way that supports your own purposes. And that's the problem - we have so many gun owners in this country that selfishly want to protect their investments and their misguided feelings of personal safety (despite the fact that statistically, you are in more danger of getting shot if you own a gun than if you don't) that it is almost impossible to convince a majority that the 2nd amendment says what it actually says rather than what so many wish it said.

But the purpose of the amendment is to protect the existence of what we now call the National Guard. It was an amendment that protected the rights of the states to have their own militias to act as a check against the federal army. It was a compromise to satisfy the advocates of states rights, many of whom felt a strong national government needed to be balanced by explicit rights given to the states, including militarily.

By the way, those of you talking about DC's murder rate despite its gun restrictions need to realize where it is those guns are coming from. Take a look at the statistics sometime. They're not coming from DC.

You also might want to look at a city like New York, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and is also the safest large city in the country. In its case as well, the vast majority of guns confiscated in crimes in New York were legally purchased in places like North Carolina and Virginia, where gun laws are much more relaxed. The theory that tougher gun laws means only criminals have guns is only true when those laws are enacted piecemeal. Even so, you can't argue with the crime statistics. All you need to do is compare New York to, say, Dallas, which is in an area with less restrictive gun laws state-wide and in fact regionally. (Dallas itself has gun restrictions, but like DC, it proves the point that these laws need to be at least regional, and preferably national. I mean, criminals do own cars.) Go ahead and click that link.

The results of tough gun laws - when enacted and enforced properly - speak for themselves, as does the 2nd amendment.

Yep, there are. But Las Vegas isn't the worst city for crime in the US. It's not in the bottom 100. It's worse than the national average, but better than Los Angeles, Oakland, Miami, or Chicago, and is about tied with Boston, none of which have legal gambling. Check it out. So obviously casinos and legalized gambling are not the source of the problem since Las Vegas has those plus all the same things those other more criminally active cities have as well. It seems likely that if the criminals in Las Vegas didn't have casinos to work with they'd just work their magic with something else. Hence my opinion that the casinos are not in fact a problem.

Cheers.

Subject change; This company is based in Clearwater, FL. Anybody else get a sneaking suspicion that this has something to do with scientology?

short answer= NO

the company website is a robopark.com - Needless to say, the site is down intermittently since the mention in wired. Research on the site seems to imply that the company has german roots.

side note

Demographics for Clearwater

total population = 108,787

as seen here: About 6,850 Scientology followers have moved to the Clearwater area, joining the church's 1,400 uniformed employees.

See also this report on religios demographics is Pinellas County

Not everyone in Clearwater is a scientologist. Of course you are free to your opinion. But you seem to panic too easily.

Google is your friend.

On March 29, 2006, students at Mackenzie High in Detroit staged a walkout to protest the lack of textbooks and tiolet paper. 32 were arrested, with 8 charged for disorderly conduct, and 1 for inciting to riot. Some parents were fined $500. here

You have no rights in a crappy neighborhood.

Detroit Cops used to regularly round up anyone nearby a murder and hold them in cells, and although they signed a concent decree saying that they wouldn't, when they cut the budget, they made sure to cut the people responsible for monitoring those decrees.

When cops began random searches of the people mover, there was no protest or question.

Relax, all of these efforts to curtail citizens rights have kept the homicide closure rate at a remarkable 45-50%, while the number of homicides rises faster than the city's population can dwindle.

Don't wager too much, LA (state) and (city)

So there's more greedy polititians in LA, and therefor more representation. It's also less likely they'd do anything useful in government though.

What would we do nowadays without it?. I am sitting in London, UK, having a nice apple juice to finish my breakfast, in my office overlooking the Thames river:

Missoula population statistics

Mexico City's population: ~ 16000000 (give or take, depending who you believe).
London's population: ~ 8000000
Mexico City's Azteca stadium capacity (all comfortably sitted): 110000.
Missoula, Monatana, US: ~57000.

I don't know, but Missoula looks small to me.

Yes but your 55 electoral votes represent 35.5M people. The three votes in Wyoming represent 500,000 people (which is, incidentally, fewer citizens than live in the District of Columbia by 100,000 citizens). Per citizen, Wyoming has 3.8 times the power in the Electoral College than does California. The swing-state dynamics change over time; small-state power does not.

California would give its left nut to get rid of the Electoral College; Wyoming will hold on to the death.

Was that an attempt at humor?

Grand Haven Population: 11,168

Totally with you, except the population. Austin is at around 656,562. I bet if you add Cedar Park, Pfluegeville, Round Rock, and all of the others, you might have close to 1 million.

Unfortunately, plenty of jurisdictions in this country have taken to claiming Homeland Security funds to put in things that they couldn't afford before but can only get federal funds for by putting a terrorism face on it.

So, when you ask what kind of activity can these cameras detect? Rape, murder, robbery, assault/battery, and jaywalking. In this day and age, if you need funding for crime prevention, you can't get it, but if you call it terrorism prevention, you get some dough.

"At that point, Ann Carr [lobbyist] was wildly mouthing to Senator Person that she wanted another of her speakers (Dean Dale, ex-CEO of Time Warner Cable Memphis) to take the Podium. Dale went to the mic and briefly stated that prosecutions were brisk, involving large piracy rings and investigations lasting as long as 18 months. He also said that in the Memphis area they believed there were around 60,000 people with illegal cable service."

Here is a population/household stat on Memphis.
Memphis Population: 650100
Male Population: 307643
Female Population: 342457
Households: 250721
Median Age: 32
Average Household Size: 2.52

Taking this information: 60,000 illegal cable user is roughly 25% of households and therefor the cable company is claiming that when you drive down the street every 4th house is stealing cable services.

Do you believe that?

First, does it effectly halt the do-not-call list's use for the other 49 states? It would be a shame if a state with a population of just 3.5 million could cause the scrapping of a list that protects 50 million Americans from unwanted calls.

The other question left unanswered is where this ruling will be appealed. Does it go to a higher Oklahoma court, or to the Supreme Court, or what?

(I grew up in Corvallis. There's real traffic during home OSU games, for the 4th of July fireworks, and when the Jehovah's Witness convention is in town. That's it. And that's the 4th largest city in the State.)


Bzzzt. Try again:

1.) Portland 529,121
2.) Eugene 137,893
3.) Salem 136,924
4.) Gresham 90,205
5.) Beaverton 76,129
6.) Hillsboro 70,126
7.) Medford 63,154
8.) Springfile 52,864

Corvalis = 49,322

See Here

If you saw a map of the US you would see the same thing. Have a look at the USA state by state
census. Compare The eastern states to the central states, and western states.

Have a look at these census numbers for Canada's 27 Metropolitan areas. The top four cities have 1, 2, 3.5, and 4.7 million people. Two more cities are just under 1million, 3 more are just under 700thousand. The other 18 areas are spread between 150, 450 thousand. Does this really mean the population is more concentrated? The largest population centre, Toronto, has a density of 603 p/sqkm. Compare this to the entire state of New Jersey: 437p/sqkm. That is a "high density" city compared to a state. New York state is better at 155p/sqkm. But this is still higher then the density of southern Ontario and Quebec. The most densly populated regions of the country. 20% of the popluation live in small towns of 10k or less. These seems to compare favorably with the USA where 80% of the population live in "metro."

*My 2-3 million number was wrong. I suspect the difference is due to the use of "metropolitan area" versus city.