Slashdot Mirror

Hey, I'm not the one accusing someone of felonies without proof.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

How about the fact that she specifically ordered someone to send classified material "nonsecure" and remove the classified headings?

She may have said it, but was it sent? It appears not.

We don't know that at all. We know that the State Department and the campaign were claiming that to the New York Times a year ago, (your article is from January), but "the truth" about Clinton's emails has changed several times since then.

Do I have to prove it? Can the FBI prove it instead? Let's ask FBI Director James Comey what he found on the server.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent...

Cool, so 30K+ emails - check
104 classified information vs 110 - close enough - check
22 secret+ vs 8/36 - given the numbers, close enough in my book.

What you haven't stated is the source of the classified information and whether it was marked classified. Receiving classified email is not the fault of the receiver but sender.

we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

Now this would be damning, but if it was being sent around on an unclassified system, the originator is the person that's at fault.

If it came from an unclassified source, it's not classified, even if the gov wants it to be classified.

So everyone reading this blather knows, this is false. It doesn't even support the point you're trying to make. Think about it logically. If someone found out the nuclear launch codes and emailed them to someone, do the nuclear launch codes automatically become declassified? Or take these emails. The State Department is publishing them with redactions for classification. Why would they still be classified if they came from Hillary's unclassified system?

If Joe Blow publishes the "Nuklear Kodes are 000000" and that happens to be true, it doesn't make it classified, at least not for Joe Blow, even if Joe Blow is the Janitor in the IRS building. IOW, if someone speaks about something, even if they're a gov employee, and they weren't given classified information but they speak of something that some other section classified elsewhere, it's not classified. Saying you should know that some random location is classified is incorrect, especially if said random location is splattered all over the news at the time, as one example. I'm pretty sure Congress would have impeached Clinton at the least if there was smoking gun evidence. There isn't. Get over it.

I've already stated that there is no way to prove Powell's use, as he stated he has none of those emails, as referenced in the link above.

Hey, I'm not the one accusing someone of felonies without proof.

From your link, Powell did state: "I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement" which I can only believe means that she herself wasn't 100% aware of the technical aspects of her email support, so you'll need to provide proof that she intentionally kept anything hidden on her private email server.

How about the fact that she specifically ordered someone to send classified material "nonsecure" and remove the classified headings?

But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.

- CBS News

Also, we do know that of the 30+K emails Clinton sent, only 22 were later classified as secret after the fact. 104 were considered classified, yet all of those came from an unclassified state dept system. Guess what's not allowed on unclassified systems?

We don't know that at all. We know that the State Department and the campaign were claiming that to the New York Times a year ago, (your article is from January), but "the truth" about Clinton's emails has changed several times since then.

At this point, I'd state that you'd need to prove that a single classified email with known classified information with the proper relationships in the document to actually make them classified was sent knowingly by Clinton from her private email server. Retro-active classification does not qualify.

Do I have to prove it? Can the FBI prove it instead? Let's ask FBI Director James Comey what he found on the server.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent...

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In a

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

So the FBI admits that there were at least 8 emails sent as TS on the unsecured server. Many more contained classified or secret information. These do not include "up-classified" emails, as that would be a bit unfair to include.

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

So open admission that they were housed, knowingly, on a insecure server.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Intent to violate the law would never fly for you or me. You either did or you didn't break the law when it comes to criminal actions like this. Already using weasel words. Besides, the case seems to reflect what would happen to anyone under US Title 18 Sec 793 Part F. Possibly part E.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

In case you missed it

To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

And there it is. "We aren't looking into THAT matter, but yeah, if someone does what she did, there is a very high chance of security or administrative sanctions". Even though most people would end up being jailed under the previously listed law, or have their security clearances revoked and unable to be reinstated.

To set the record straight - Donald Trump is a tool. He should not be president. It was a bad move on the party's part. But so was nominating Clinton. This whole election is a shitshow.

False.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

- FBI Director James Comey, in a nationally televised speech about the investigation. 110 emails containing classified information at the time of sending.

One hundred and ten is far more than "none"

Troll alert. This is apples and rotten oranges...

These body cameras are intrusive and over the top when it comes to personal privacy, but if you believe the news reports coming out of police departments, cops actually like them after having to wear them for a while. No more BS, "he said/she said" issues; And I'm sure that cops love not having to deal with paperwork over unfounded cop complaints.

OTOH, red light cameras (and speed cameras) were put in place as a "sin tax" revenue grab by government officials/councilmen/legislators that usually had personal vendettas against rude/aggressive drivers. Those naive officials were easy prey for the real bandits - companies like ATS and Redflex, whose CEO was bribing city officials to get the revenue generators installed in as many places as possible.

Body cameras: Enormous drop in police complaints, and both sides like the extra clarity they provide to litigious and/or life or death situations. Red light cameras: mixed safety results, bogged-down municipal courts, confusion, outright corruption, and even murder generation.

Of course these days, who cares about facts. Perception is reality...

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

That is 110 counts of Felony mishandling of classified information.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

There are three more counts.

Now, as to the government issued cell phone, she was offered a Blackberry like every other government employee, she chose instead to have her own Blackberry, so how did she exactly avoid the "poor excuse" for a cell phone?

http://www.politico.com/story/...

As well, the fact that she failed to turn over official records, that were improperly stored and destroyed breaks the records retention laws that were clarified after she left office, but were always assumed to cover email as well as paper.

https://www.archives.gov/about...

You can choose to believe that she did nothing wrong, but fact is, she committed many felonies, and concealed evidence of them by running her own server. We will never know what she did or didn't do for Benghazi, but we do know that she destroyed emails related to it. It is rather hard to run an investigation when the party is destroying evidence the whole time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It is quite clear that there are many emails not delivered to the investigation. and in fact, there were several emails requesting additional security before the attack that were ignored, that would have been sent to Clinton, but none were in her email dump. In fact, other countries had already closed their embassies at that time, so it isn't like no one knew there were issues.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

But, I wasn't even speaking about Benghazi, you bring tha

Statement by FBI Director James Comey

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

Emphasis mine.

18 USC 793 (f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

So, to answer your question, 110 counts of violation of 18 USC 793 (f). Stop being an apologist.

1- This isn't about some mx redirect thing (or a domain name), this is about storing the emails on a private server.
2- No, they don't necessarily. If you wanted to email a private email server, why would the government have that on record? At least one of the two parties would need to have their emails on a government controlled system. Which one seems like the better plan to you: you, me, and everyone else in the world, needs to somehow have accounts on a government server -OR- the secretary of state keeps emails on a state department server as per policy?
3- I don't know what you mean here. She used the clintonemail.com server for her work in the state department. There were tens of thousands of emails that were in question.
4- You are wrong. She announced her candidacy in April 2015. Here's a wired article from March 2015:
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/c...
(and archive: http://archive.is/2015.03.05-0... )

"The person who may had broke the law is the person who sent classified information to her email address."

That's not really how this works. But pretend it did. Here's Comey on it:
"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters."

"However she is a politician not a IT expert."

She employed numerous IT experts, however, and certainly could be expected to know the implications.

"If it was an average guy who did this... Chances are they may had lost their job, but not had criminal activity put on him."

Clinton doesn't have any criminal charges being placed on her. She's never been indicted. Comey pretty much stated that anyone else would be in hot steaming shit.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

Quite honestly man, you can google this. You've been able to google this for awhile. To me, the most interesting part isn't the emails, it's the consistent stream of bad information out of Clinton herself. On March 10th, 2015 (before she announced for president), she said "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

That was either an omission or a lie. But if you follow it forward, it just gets sillier- at almost every chance to discuss this, she dissembled, provided false information, or maybe even straight fucking lied. The fact that you or I would never work again if we made this kind of mistake, the bizarre deletions, the possible foreign intel implications- that's all whatever compared to the fact that this was just deny, deny, deny until the evidence caught up.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

There were still 110 emails in 52 separate conversations that had classified information at the time sent or received, according to the director of the FBI during a televised statement, quoted above. Source, quoted paragraph 12.

Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential. At the time of sending or receipt. Stop being an apologist.

News organisations are always wanting to protect their sources, so now they want the FBI to give out theirs? So the next time they are asked to give their sources on something are they going to? Not likely. Also, what reason do they need to know who or how it was cracked? As for costs, being tax payers money, that should be disclosed but that's about it.

FBI Mission & Prioritiest

Just a quick glance at this should highlight some answers to your question for you, but in case the chips are still not falling into place, I'll highlight the reasons that most resonate with me personally.

A constitutional responsibility to protect my privacy

The FBI is expected to respect my right to privacy, not hide the master-keys away in case we need it later.

The FBI is expected to Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes, not claim monopoly on them.

The FBIs actions in this regard are at odds with their stated mission on multiple points, and IANAL, but it looks to me like pretty shaky legal ground as well.

News media's use of confidential sources has been tested and upheld MANY times. We like it that way, protected sources are important. Look to Snowden to see an example of what can happen when sources go on record regarding high profile corruption. It seems to be sometimes forgotten, but the press enjoys certain protections on expectation that it will act as a watchdog, reigning in our government when it over-reaches/misbehaves.

July 5, 2016: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

What he said is that he was unlikely to be able to find a DA willing to prosecute her....

Fact checking you. You fail.

What James Comey actually said is: “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case ... responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

I don't get this sea of ACs defending her actions.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

When the FBI director comes out and says 52 classified, 8 TS, 36 Secret, 8 Confidential (at the time of transmission), and 2000 that were later up-classified, as they had not been previously classified, you know you done f'd up. Defending the 2000 as if the other 52 didn't exist makes no sense. It is trying to conceal the nature of the crime by changing the story.

I can only presume that the ACs are paid by Clinton to defend her, as they are just parroting the talking points that were shattered months ago.

The problem with this argument is the FBI's report does not say it was only a sentence or two. It says there were thousands of classified emails, some of which were entire classified documents, markings and all.

No, it didn't. At least Comey's summary says nothing of the sort.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

"Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were âoeup-classifiedâ to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

And...

"With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been âoeup-classified.â

Finally...

"Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."

So flat out, unless you are in possession of a different report that indicates Comey made up the summary in whole cloth, you're being dishonest in your claims.

An insightful read: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-forgotten-1957-trial-that-explains-our-countrys-bizarre-whistleblower-laws-213771

From https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Yes, being careless with classified information IS illegal. Perhaps you would like to argue with James Comey about what is legal and not? Unfortunately, because Hillary is well connected, and wealthy, no prosecutor would take the case, it doesn't make it any less illegal. This on top of the official records act laws others mentioned.

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us...
No intent, kept records in house, but with knowledge (which Hillary should have had...she went through the briefs).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Tried to bring attention to a perceived illegal activity, prosecuted anyways.

http://www.politico.com/story/...
Sailor took some photos for posterity of his workplace, he seems to have had no clue it was even an issue until he was charged with holding classified information.

http://pilotonline.com/news/mi...
No intent to distribute.

http://usuncut.com/politics/cl...

Of course, there is no case like Clinton's, even Powel never sent or received classified information. It is however gross negligence, and all of these above were the same.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

The link to the FBI director's statement so that you don't try to claim you didn't know about it.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

(this breaks records retention laws https://www.archives.gov/about... )

"“I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them,” Mrs. Clinton replied."

Except that if that were true, then Clinton and the left wouldn't be constantly trying to ban a class of scary-looking rifles that are used in less murders than knives or even fists. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

Compare 'rifles' to knives, blunt objects, or fists.

I can't tell if you are really that dumb, or just a liar.

How about we act like adults?

I never said anything Hillary did was "OK".

You're clearly attempting to minimize it.

Just that the FBI effectively cleared her.

That's exactly the problem, James Comey:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

The only reason she wasn't charged is because no one is going to sacrifice their careers going after her.

And the same people going after her are the ones that defended similar things done previously.

This is just a strawman argument. I didn't defend anyone who did similar things. I think Patraeus got exactly what he deserved. Criminal charges, thousands in fines, disgraced and his career ruined. But because I'm not a hypocrite , I think Hilary deserves the same.

Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy isn't the same as justifying the most recent.

Oh great! Just so we're clear then, you agree what Hilary did was wrong, right?

1. So many people are over weight these days. Fat is unattractive therefore fat people will not have a lot of sex.

The attractiveness or not of fat has varied so much that it's pretty much certainly a cultural thing. And some people right in this culture find fat attractive. Just google "BBW" for some education (NSFW).

Using pornography terms as a gauge of male interest is a pretty weak metric of male sexual interests. A quick glance at this chart suggests that BBW doesn't even break the top 10. (hint it's teen, milf, and lesbian. Not a fatty in sight) http://indy100.independent.co....

2. Rape hysteria and the associated laws act as a disincentive.

What rape hysteria? Rape culture is where a rapist like Brock Turner gets a scant 6 months because the the judge says a prison sentence might have a bad impact on him.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=false+rape+news also see UVA's false rape article from the lovely Rolling Stone. In case that isn't enough for you, here's the FBI's own statistics saying rape has been in decline http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...

3. Men are being taught to be wimps, single mothers can't teach men how to be desirable.

I reject your ideas of what I should be.

Good for you, but it doesn't make them any less true.

7. The globalist propaganda says global warming and overpopulation is rampant, discouraging people from having children.

Yeah people never just screw for the hell of it. Only for kids. True story.

Do you have a point you're trying to make? You might be better able to formulate an argument with one ;)

8. Slutty women and their STD's, pregnancy scares and personal drama make a man think twice about chasing tail.

Wait slutty women (read: women actually happy to have sex) is a reason less sex is happening? WTF? More likely a lot of guys like you being a raging asshole to anyone who'll have sex with you is a reason you're not getting any.

See false rape hysteria above. Secondly, not all men are players nor do they want to be involved with easy access women. I find it hilarious you presume I want access to easy women (already married).

The bottom line? Dating is a buyer's market and the buyers are women. /em.

Not really, no. There's quite a bit of social pressure against it, but a lot of guys want to settle down and have kids. And of course women who want to sleep around (which is what people like you want) then get insulted and called sluts... by people like you. So that's a disincentive if ever there was one.

Your entire premise here doesn't make any sense. What do slutty women, settling down, and ad hominem have anything to do with men improving themselves to attract another partner?

TL;DR serviscope_minor's reply, "Wah! Someone said something that goes contrary to what I learned in my liberal arts classes!

Wrong. They recovered some of her emails, but not all of them. Some of the emails they were able to recover from the official state.gov servers, but an unknown quantity of emails were never recovered. To quote from Comey himself:

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

The bottom line is that we'll never know just how bad Clinton's handling of email was, unless someone (like Russia) comes forward with the emails they copied off her insecure server during the time it was running.

No, the NRA did not lobby to stop government research on gun violence.

According to the NYT, the NRA did lobby to stop government research on gun violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01...
N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: January 25, 2011

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of âoeputting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,â said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.
Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was âoeredundantâ and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centersâ(TM) budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

The research into gun violence is under the purview of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The federal agencies keep statistics on actual crime rates and don't try to force conclusions based on an uber-liberal bias.

According to articles in Science and Nature, researchers in gun violence say that the statistics gathered by the Department of Justice and FBI https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t... are worthless for epidemiological investigation into the important questions they want to answer.

For example, much of the statistical reporting is voluntary, which biases the result. And they don't give the identity of the victims or accused, or the reporting officer, as they do in auto accidents for example, so you can't take a sample of cases and track down the causes and associated factors, as that NEJM suicide study did.

When I used to research auto safety, I found many US and foreign studies of auto accidents which would give complete details on hundreds or thousands of accidents -- type of accident, damage to car, type of injury, vehicle speed, weather, cause(s) of accident, etc. From these studies they could figure out what was causing accident deaths and injuries and figure out how to prevent them. For example, they proved that seat belts saved lives, by about 50% or more, and 100% in certain kinds of accidents. Everybody was pretty sure that seat belts saved lives, but lobbyists from the US auto industry were denying it, and congress would't accept or require seat belts in US cars it until engineers published papers demonstrating it in 1967. The result was seat belt laws that saved about 25,000 lives a year. I also used to research medical device accidents, and the FDA had the same kind of reporting system.

In contrast, you can't use the DOJ and FBI statistics for that kind of analysis. Why do people kill each other? How many of those guns were legally bought and how many of them were illegally obtained? Where did they get the illegal guns from? You can't tell from that data.

Surely if we look only at murder rates only we can within some reasonable margin of error conclude something from them. Take the FBI chart for 2013 (below) that we've probably all seen before. Black and white homicide rates are close to tied -with white homicide perpetrators being slightly fewer. Now, of course I assume the causes are cultural and socioeconomic (fixable) but I don't see how we'll ever address crime in this country effectively if we constantly make excuses for the offenders: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c...

And I quote, from the original briefing by Comey:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Comey is covering his own ass at this point, along with Hillary's.

Comey said, “Actually it caught my attention when I first saw it, and what she explained and other witnesses did as well is what she meant by that is send it in a non-classified format," Comey said. “In diplomatic circles ('non paper') means something we could pass to another government.”

This is obviously false given that the reason for the email was that they were trying to send it via secure fax and failing; stripping off headers does not suddenly make it safe to send over a public wire, especially if it's to a foreign office! Furthermore, stripping off the headers does not suddenly make something non-classified (I've actually worked with classified documents, and I would have faced prosecution for any one of these missteps).

It's also amusing because Comey admitted that he did not participate in the "interrogation" of Hillary, nor did he speak to all of those that did. So it's great that--years later--he accepts people explaining away gross negligence.

I would disagree with you there. To me it almost seemed like James Comey's statements were him being told to produce one result but an attempt to tell the truth. I found the whole statement to be a laundry list of things Clinton did wrong in regards to this matter interspersed with lots of "lack of intent" statements. The law that everyone has been referencing that Clinton may have broken is 18 U.S. Code 793 (F) which doesn't require intent only gross negligence. So on one hand we have what appears to be rampant incompetence in her handling of e-mail as documented by the FBI and on the other a law that only requires negligence not intent and from these a recommendation to not proceed with indictment proceedings. This is one where it just doesn't' pass the smell test, and no I am not a Trump supporter as most of what comes out of his mouth doesn't pass the smell test either.

Why the fuck do you think FBI decided not to prosecute then?

FBI made no such decision. DOJ did.

FBI did not recommend prosecution. And explained why — you don't have to ask my opinion:

our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case

The White House and the Department of Justice (which would've done the prosecution) are in the hands of the Democrats — until January. And Democrats do not prosecute Democrats.

The next time you need help make sure sure you call a hacker, they are always virtuous. Remember every police office is some low IQ sadist, yes yes they are. 123 police killed in the line of duty in 2015,( http://www.nleomf.org/facts/of...) thats ok they all had it coming. Of course every one of the 985 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/) people killed by the police were angels on mercy missions, shot down deliberately by the blue minions from hell. Lets see 11.2 million arrests in 2014 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stori... So that's a failure leading to death of the arrestee of .00879% of the time, not getting hysterical over a tiny failure rate nope. Where is the frantic indignation for the 16,000 homicides http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat... we don't care about them as they were killed by their fellow victims of police brutality? Or the 38,300 traffic fatalities? ( http://www.npr.org/sections/th...), we don't care about them because they must have all been killed by accidents caused by police chasing peace loving missionaries? I wonder why I have never been shot? Could it be that I follow directions, and lawful orders of the police?

It is not true that "anyone but hillary" would do prison time for what happened here

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences." - FBI Directory James Comey, speaking about Hillary Clinton's spillage incident. [transcript]

https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento... How about that for president from last year? This guy just took some work home...

Further, there's "classified" information and then there's "classified" information. Many things are classified, (in fact, it's hard to find government information that's not), but we haven't been told if it's just classified, secret, top secret, or higher...

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received." Jesus fucking Christ, just read the FBI statement about the report, it's like 4 pages long. It clearly states there were Top Secret classified information on her servers, which did not comply with the requirements to house such data.

But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us. Who will be charged for anything and everything they can think of.

Surprisingly, Mr Comey, actually admitted this in his statement...

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Why can't people like Mr Comey run for public office?

None of this is really amusing. As Americans, we are faced with a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I was referring to the Monica Lewinsky thing. That one stuck. President Clinton was impeached. I think it's important that we look at undistorted facts from the original sources.

It appears that implying Hillary Clinton and her colleagues of "Deliberate mishandling of classified information" would be factually incorrect.

According to the FBI:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

Full text here:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

They should have checked their own website for press releases within the past year to find a case that was prosecuted.

https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento...

Hopefully what the public remembers about this is that if an enlisted man did exactly what she did, he'd be in Leavenworth.

Too late. An enlisted man already did something similar. He wasn't sent to Leavenworth (I think), but he was charged, convicted, and sentenced to probation for a substantially similar crime -- and he actually admitted to doing it!

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.

According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.

Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.

Compare Detroit's scenario to Chicago's: Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and the highest gun homicide rate!

Chicago has a much lower homicide and gun homicide rate than Detroit. In fact, Chicago doesn't even rank in the top 10 US cities by gun homicide rate OR by homicide rate. By homicide alone, Chicago doesn't even rank in the top THIRTY US cities. (note: a relatively uniform 68% of all homicides are committed with guns).

http://www.neighborhoodscout.c...

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/20...

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c...

In Detroit the Police Chief with massive government cutbacks advised local citizens to arm themselves!

And Detroit still ranks 25 spots AHEAD of Chicago in the number of homicides. Detroit still leads the country as the big city with the most homicides (and the most gun homicides).

The notion that more guns = less crime has been proven to be a myth, over and over and over. This is why the NRA really doesn't want the CDC to be able to collect data and do research on gun violence. In fact, they've successfully pushed legislation through a Republican congress that forbids them from doing so.

http://www.livescience.com/514...

As this discriminated against women, this practice was swiftly forbidden by the EU. It probably wouldn't have been forbidden if it discriminated against men, but that's another issue. It was actual gender based discrimination.

Actually, insurance companies are not allowed to charge men more for motor insurance because it is discriminatory. The EU applies the rules equally.

* More muslims commit terrorist attacks than non-muslims

The most recent stats I could find from the FBI say that Jews committed more terrorist attacks in the US in the period 2002-2005. I read something similar about Europe that I can't be bothered to find now, because this one has been debunked quote thoroughly.

Denying the existence of these correlations to protect from discrimination is wrong.

People aren't trying deny the existence of the ones you listed that are correct, in fact they are acknowledging them by trying to address them. The problem is that if you account for say black people being more likely to be convicted of a crime in sentencing, black people see that the system is unfairly biased against them and lose faith in it. That does nothing to break the cycle, in fact it's counter-productive.

No system can be perfectly fair in the real world, but it's really important that there is a transparent process and that things people can't do anything about, like skin colour or where they were born, are not factors in determining how they are treated.

What about it? Do you own a business, or work for one? Have you considered how well you'd fare if nobody was allowed to promote your business or try to find new customers, or remind people why your product or service is a good alternative to something else? Do you understand that private companies have to actually generate revenue or they can't do anything, because they'll be bankrupt?

Have you considered that there is a distinct difference between presenting information regarding the services one can provide, and presenting grandiose claims that seek to entice consumers in a manner that is misleading at best, an outright fraud? Do you understand that private companies can engage in less than honest practices in order to increase their profit margin?

But I expect you to cut these questions, just like you cut my earlier ones:

How much money does that cost, and what is its purpose? Where does all of the revenues of the pharmaceutical industry go? Is sending a sexy-dressed rep to a doctor really training them? Is lack of an erection REALLY a life-threatening disease?

Is there some reason you avoided these questions? Or did you not recognize their importance and meaning?

Except in order to use that financing program, you have to find doctors and facilities that are willing (usually at a financial loss) to conduct their operations and even their patient-by-patient, case-by-case decision making and prioritization according to Medicare's rules. That generally results in doctors losing money, which brings us to...

Oh my, are you saying other insurance companies don't have their own decision-making and prioritization processes? Because that's not true. But ok, you've made a claim. So how much do doctors lose, and how does what Medicare pays compare to what others pay?

Also, the doctors and healthcare facilities, if they're losing money, the question to ask is also why? What are they spending money on? I asked you already, what about their fountains and high-end landscaping and other actions?

No, it's not. It's rife with fraud and waste. Hundreds of billions of dollars' worth.

Oh, you're saying fraud is a problem then? Fraud by who? Medicare officials? Or is it somebody else?

Once you GET care. Or IF you get care.

Do you want them to instantly provide care with no questions asked then?

Then you may have some more fraud problems. And funding.

Good stewardship of my tax dollars would have seen at least ONE person lose their job over the truly terrible conditions and processes exposed year after year as third parties and the VA itself review how awfully run the agency is. Vets waiting months and years to be seen. Do you understand that?

Don't worry, Shinseki resigned, so that counts as losing a job. So do you have anything to suggest that? The VA has been complained about since as long as I can remember. I've heard demands to fire somebody over and over. It's been going on for decades. Because of that, I think it's just a political football that gets tossed back and forth rather than fixed.

Maybe we could fire the politicians then. Think that'll happen?

Yeah, better to just let all of that medical care and education grind to a halt.

Why would that result happen because someone told Bill Gates to stop taking certain actions?

Your idea of cause and effect seems detached.

Or you believe Bill Gates somehow is causing all medicare and education to exist, which no, no, that is not true.

I can't see how you would get that

You're not being honest, though; that's the point. France took away the "toys" and, yet, they still have the dead people. I'm not okay with dead people (well, as a natural part of the life cycle, actually, I am, but I digress), I just realize that removing easy access to commercially manufactured guns doesn't solve the problem. If it did, France would have fewer mass shootings per-capita than the US, not more. Given the same population (that's why the statistics are per-capita) we should be able to expect fewer mass shootings (not mas shooting deaths, but the shootings themselves) in France than the US, but that simply does not follow reality or facts, both of which actually do matter.

You want facts? You want to concentrate on the number of people killed? The 2015 stats aren't out yet, but here's 2010-2014. For the FBI's purposes, 1 death = 1 murder, so these numbers are the actual number of people killed, not simply the number of incidents.

We're talking about banning rifles, right? Let's analyze the data, then. I'll even throw in shotguns to make it fair.

Let's look at the most recent statistics first: 2014. There were a total of 11,961 murders reported in 2014, of which 8,124 involved guns. Sounds bad, right? It is, but it's not bad for rifles, which were used in only 248 of those. Add in the 262 shotgun murders and long guns (510) still haven't killed more people than hands, fists, and feet (660) or knives (1,567).

I know, I know, there's a huge number of "type not stated" firearm murders. Let's take a look at those, then. If we assume the same ratio of handguns to rifles to shotguns to other[1] (5562:248:262:93, or 90.22%, 4.02%, 4.25%, and 1.51% respectively), we can add 79 rifle murders and 83 shotgun murders. Still, neither killed more people than hands, fists, and feet, or knives. Combined (672), they're just barely more deadly than hands, fists, and feet; they still don't touch knives, though.

Do you want to ban handguns? Or do you want to jump on the "ban rifles" bandwagon and not affect any real change? I ask because, and here's the important part, these statistics hold true as far back as I can find it.

If you want to ban handguns, we can talk. I mean, they're the most useful guns for personal and home defense in typical situations, and they're the most prevalent and will be literally impossible to remove from circulation (or reduce in any meaningful number), due to how easy they are to hide or transport, but they do consistently account for more than 50% of murder weapons in the US (going back to 2001, there are only 3 years [2001, 2010, and 2013] where they only accounted for nearly half), so maybe that would be worth trying. We could spend billions on it like we've done with marijuana and prostitution, I'm sure it'll work this time.

But rifles? Consistently 2%, except for 2002 and 2007 where they weighed in at 3%. Hell, hands, fists, and feet consistently more than double that; and knives? Consistently at 12% or higher.

Want to affect real change? Make it harder to get, and easier to lose, your drivers license. That should cut down some of the 32,675 annual vehicle-related deaths, a number which absolutely dwarfs the murder rate (nearly triple!), weighing in at more than four times the rate of gun-related murder. Rifle and shotgun murders are rounding error, something I'd expect you to be familiar with given the way you attempted to school me in statistics earlier.

People

You're not being honest, though; that's the point. France took away the "toys" and, yet, they still have the dead people. I'm not okay with dead people (well, as a natural part of the life cycle, actually, I am, but I digress), I just realize that removing easy access to commercially manufactured guns doesn't solve the problem. If it did, France would have fewer mass shootings per-capita than the US, not more. Given the same population (that's why the statistics are per-capita) we should be able to expect fewer mass shootings (not mas shooting deaths, but the shootings themselves) in France than the US, but that simply does not follow reality or facts, both of which actually do matter.

You want facts? You want to concentrate on the number of people killed? The 2015 stats aren't out yet, but here's 2010-2014. For the FBI's purposes, 1 death = 1 murder, so these numbers are the actual number of people killed, not simply the number of incidents.

We're talking about banning rifles, right? Let's analyze the data, then. I'll even throw in shotguns to make it fair.

Let's look at the most recent statistics first: 2014. There were a total of 11,961 murders reported in 2014, of which 8,124 involved guns. Sounds bad, right? It is, but it's not bad for rifles, which were used in only 248 of those. Add in the 262 shotgun murders and long guns (510) still haven't killed more people than hands, fists, and feet (660) or knives (1,567).

I know, I know, there's a huge number of "type not stated" firearm murders. Let's take a look at those, then. If we assume the same ratio of handguns to rifles to shotguns to other[1] (5562:248:262:93, or 90.22%, 4.02%, 4.25%, and 1.51% respectively), we can add 79 rifle murders and 83 shotgun murders. Still, neither killed more people than hands, fists, and feet, or knives. Combined (672), they're just barely more deadly than hands, fists, and feet; they still don't touch knives, though.

Do you want to ban handguns? Or do you want to jump on the "ban rifles" bandwagon and not affect any real change? I ask because, and here's the important part, these statistics hold true as far back as I can find it.

If you want to ban handguns, we can talk. I mean, they're the most useful guns for personal and home defense in typical situations, and they're the most prevalent and will be literally impossible to remove from circulation (or reduce in any meaningful number), due to how easy they are to hide or transport, but they do consistently account for more than 50% of murder weapons in the US (going back to 2001, there are only 3 years [2001, 2010, and 2013] where they only accounted for nearly half), so maybe that would be worth trying. We could spend billions on it like we've done with marijuana and prostitution, I'm sure it'll work this time.

But rifles? Consistently 2%, except for 2002 and 2007 where they weighed in at 3%. Hell, hands, fists, and feet consistently more than double that; and knives? Consistently at 12% or higher.

Want to affect real change? Make it harder to get, and easier to lose, your drivers license. That should cut down some of the 32,675 annual vehicle-related deaths, a number which absolutely dwarfs the murder rate (nearly triple!), weighing in at more than four times the rate of gun-related murder. Rifle and shotgun murders are rounding error, something I'd expect you to be familiar with given the way you attempted to school me in statistics earlier.

People

You're not being honest, though; that's the point. France took away the "toys" and, yet, they still have the dead people. I'm not okay with dead people (well, as a natural part of the life cycle, actually, I am, but I digress), I just realize that removing easy access to commercially manufactured guns doesn't solve the problem. If it did, France would have fewer mass shootings per-capita than the US, not more. Given the same population (that's why the statistics are per-capita) we should be able to expect fewer mass shootings (not mas shooting deaths, but the shootings themselves) in France than the US, but that simply does not follow reality or facts, both of which actually do matter.

You want facts? You want to concentrate on the number of people killed? The 2015 stats aren't out yet, but here's 2010-2014. For the FBI's purposes, 1 death = 1 murder, so these numbers are the actual number of people killed, not simply the number of incidents.

We're talking about banning rifles, right? Let's analyze the data, then. I'll even throw in shotguns to make it fair.

Let's look at the most recent statistics first: 2014. There were a total of 11,961 murders reported in 2014, of which 8,124 involved guns. Sounds bad, right? It is, but it's not bad for rifles, which were used in only 248 of those. Add in the 262 shotgun murders and long guns (510) still haven't killed more people than hands, fists, and feet (660) or knives (1,567).

I know, I know, there's a huge number of "type not stated" firearm murders. Let's take a look at those, then. If we assume the same ratio of handguns to rifles to shotguns to other[1] (5562:248:262:93, or 90.22%, 4.02%, 4.25%, and 1.51% respectively), we can add 79 rifle murders and 83 shotgun murders. Still, neither killed more people than hands, fists, and feet, or knives. Combined (672), they're just barely more deadly than hands, fists, and feet; they still don't touch knives, though.

Do you want to ban handguns? Or do you want to jump on the "ban rifles" bandwagon and not affect any real change? I ask because, and here's the important part, these statistics hold true as far back as I can find it.

If you want to ban handguns, we can talk. I mean, they're the most useful guns for personal and home defense in typical situations, and they're the most prevalent and will be literally impossible to remove from circulation (or reduce in any meaningful number), due to how easy they are to hide or transport, but they do consistently account for more than 50% of murder weapons in the US (going back to 2001, there are only 3 years [2001, 2010, and 2013] where they only accounted for nearly half), so maybe that would be worth trying. We could spend billions on it like we've done with marijuana and prostitution, I'm sure it'll work this time.

But rifles? Consistently 2%, except for 2002 and 2007 where they weighed in at 3%. Hell, hands, fists, and feet consistently more than double that; and knives? Consistently at 12% or higher.

Want to affect real change? Make it harder to get, and easier to lose, your drivers license. That should cut down some of the 32,675 annual vehicle-related deaths, a number which absolutely dwarfs the murder rate (nearly triple!), weighing in at more than four times the rate of gun-related murder. Rifle and shotgun murders are rounding error, something I'd expect you to be familiar with given the way you attempted to school me in statistics earlier.

People

30 shooting fatalities per day, and 230 non fatal shootings. That seems pretty "routine."

The implication of the original commenter, and your implication, is that guns are causing violence and because so many guns are around violence is routine.

However, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, a significant fraction of murders were criminals murdering other criminals, and a nontrivial fraction of homicides were justifiable homicides by police officers or citzens (i.e. self-defense).

So if you want to persuade me that guns are causing violence, please find some data that leave out the criminals, and see if you can figure out somehow why a guy who would be willing to shoot someone to death wouldn't also knife someone or beat someone to death. (The US not only leads the world in gun homicides but also in homicide by "Fists, Feet, Etc.; see this table.)

So if guns were more expensive and harder to get, there'd be more shootings?

Boy, if you think I actually said anything like this your reading comprehension sucks; and if you think this is a clever reframing of my argument your reasoning skills suck.

Violent criminals, mass murderers, and jihadis all have an unusually high desire to get and use a gun. If you think you can pass any laws that would guarantee these people could never get a gun, then please explain why guns that are not legal in Paris were used in the Paris massacres. For that matter, please explain why crack cocaine can still be found on the streets despite it being completely banned in every state. The people who really want to get guns are going to get them, even if you manage to make it impossible for law-abiding people to get them.

Also: if guns actually caused crime, then places that enacted gun control should have less crime. However, I am by far more likely to be shot in Chicago or Washington, D.C. than in the largest cities in my own state, and that's true even after adjusting for population size.

If you want to convince me that gun control laws can prevent crime, show me a place that was violent, enacted gun control laws, and became peaceful. No such place exists, just as no city with a large population of crack addicts has managed to enact any laws that got rid of the crack.

most shootings don't happen in gun free zones

Here is a report with data that strongly suggests that mass murderers prefer gun-free zones. It's a report that was issued to counter another report that erroneously claimed that most mass murders don't occur in gun-free zones.

leaded gasoline and Reagan's war on impoverished people (what all "wars on poverty" end up as, just Reagan didn't even hide it) lead to peak numbers in the '80s, and so a falling after will happen

Oh, I see. Leaded gasoline, Reagan, and guns cause crime; and the impact of leaded gasoline and Reagan was so profound that the rate of violent crime is falling, even though it is actually increasing as the number of guns increase. It's just that the increase from guns is hidden inside the decrease from leaded gasoline and Reagan.

Well, how could anyone argue with an analysis like that!

30 shooting fatalities per day, and 230 non fatal shootings. That seems pretty "routine."

The implication of the original commenter, and your implication, is that guns are causing violence and because so many guns are around violence is routine.

However, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, a significant fraction of murders were criminals murdering other criminals, and a nontrivial fraction of homicides were justifiable homicides by police officers or citzens (i.e. self-defense).

So if you want to persuade me that guns are causing violence, please find some data that leave out the criminals, and see if you can figure out somehow why a guy who would be willing to shoot someone to death wouldn't also knife someone or beat someone to death. (The US not only leads the world in gun homicides but also in homicide by "Fists, Feet, Etc.; see this table.)

So if guns were more expensive and harder to get, there'd be more shootings?

Boy, if you think I actually said anything like this your reading comprehension sucks; and if you think this is a clever reframing of my argument your reasoning skills suck.

Violent criminals, mass murderers, and jihadis all have an unusually high desire to get and use a gun. If you think you can pass any laws that would guarantee these people could never get a gun, then please explain why guns that are not legal in Paris were used in the Paris massacres. For that matter, please explain why crack cocaine can still be found on the streets despite it being completely banned in every state. The people who really want to get guns are going to get them, even if you manage to make it impossible for law-abiding people to get them.

Also: if guns actually caused crime, then places that enacted gun control should have less crime. However, I am by far more likely to be shot in Chicago or Washington, D.C. than in the largest cities in my own state, and that's true even after adjusting for population size.

If you want to convince me that gun control laws can prevent crime, show me a place that was violent, enacted gun control laws, and became peaceful. No such place exists, just as no city with a large population of crack addicts has managed to enact any laws that got rid of the crack.

most shootings don't happen in gun free zones

Here is a report with data that strongly suggests that mass murderers prefer gun-free zones. It's a report that was issued to counter another report that erroneously claimed that most mass murders don't occur in gun-free zones.

leaded gasoline and Reagan's war on impoverished people (what all "wars on poverty" end up as, just Reagan didn't even hide it) lead to peak numbers in the '80s, and so a falling after will happen

Oh, I see. Leaded gasoline, Reagan, and guns cause crime; and the impact of leaded gasoline and Reagan was so profound that the rate of violent crime is falling, even though it is actually increasing as the number of guns increase. It's just that the increase from guns is hidden inside the decrease from leaded gasoline and Reagan.

Well, how could anyone argue with an analysis like that!

Except there are knife and hammer emoji, and according to the FBI, in 2013 twice as many people were murdered by hammers, and fives times as many were killed by knives. Hell, three times as many were bludgeoned to death, but there is a 'fist' emoji. This is just PR shit.

source

What happens when someone who's not on a watch list commits a heinous crime on US soil, and law enforcement can't identify the person, unmasked, in good quality surveillance footage?

I'll give you a hint: They add their image or likeness to the "Wanted" page here as "Unknown Suspect" or "Unknown Individual."

In both cases shooters were stopped or shot (second one committed suicide after being stopped) within minutes - by police officers.
In both cases, response time was under the national average.

In neither case civilians (as in not security officers) didn't stop it.
Nor did non-security military personnel stop it, though some were killed while trying to do that while unarmed.
Nor did the security of the location, which is NOT a gun-free zone, as gun-free zones don't come with armed guards around them and at various locations across the "zone" - deter either of the shooters.

As for the 89th and 720th - that is their job there. When they are not deployed, they are the base security.
I.e. They carry guns.

The point is - neither do civilians with guns stop mass shooters, nor does increased security deter them.
These are insane people we're talking about.

In fact, there are more cases of unarmed civilians (21, out of 160 incidents, 2000-2013) stopping mass shooters, than there are cases of armed civilians doing that (5 - one of them a security guard at that church).
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/o...

Sorry. Neither facts nor logic support "Yosemite Sam" approach to citizen security.

If you are going to make a point with stats, please post your source. People with a gun-control agenda seem to love throwing around misinformation to convince people guns are evil. I suspect you are one of those people.

You claim 40,000 per year are killed or wounded by gun violence. The most recent FBI stats I could find showed homicides by firearm to be at 8454 for 2013 (source). The most recent stats I could find from the Justice Department for non-fatal firearm violence shows 46,000 total for 2007 though 2011 which comes out to approximately 9200 per year (source pg 10). That comes to approximately 17,600 which is less than 45% of the number you provided. That also assumes stats dating back to 2007 despite the fact that gun violence has decreased since then (you can check out the same sources above to see that trend).

As for the "approximately zero saved by good guys" - that is also 100% incorrect. While the mainstream media do not report it, there are tons of these incidents. Lucky for us, I have a source for this data as well. While those 600+ pages of articles is compiled by the "evil" NRA, they all have independent source articles linked.

I posted this above, but repetition of facts is how we learn, right?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c...

In 2013, there were 5723 murders recorded in the FBI stats.

https://www.nationalgangcenter...

In 2012, there were 2,363 gang-related homicides (2103 data not provided yet it seems), but it seems fair that around 2,000 gang-related homicides occur every year. In other words, about 40% of all murders in the US are gang-related homicides. With an estimated 770,000 gang members accounting for 40% (about 2300) of all murders, the rest of the population (314.8M) produced about 3360 murders, or about 1.06 murders per 100,000 non-gang people. This is clearly on par with other countries who do not have similar gang problems.

From the FBI numbers above, it also seems that black-on-black murders are quite disproportionately represented. At about 17% of the population, black-on-black murders were also about 40% of the total (2245). White-on-white murders were somewhat higher as an absolute number (2,509) but there are 195.6M whites compared to 53.6M blacks.

The numbers say that blacks murder blacks at 4.1 per 100,000; whites murder whites at about 0.77 per 100,000. Blacks also murdered 409 whites; whites murdered 189 blacks.

Idiots abound.

Have you ever bought a gun? Have you ever filled out Form 4473? Ever had the gun store clerk chat you up to see if you are "hinky"? Never heard of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), to which all legal firearms purchasers are subjected?

"The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c...

I walk into a licensed gun store and ask to buy a gun. What happens next?

You’ll have to complete Form 4473, which includes 16 questions relating to your background, drug use, and criminal history. The gun store will then contact NICS online or by phone and supply your answers plus your Social Security number.

What does the FBI look for in a background check?

Criminal and mental health history, dishonorable military discharges, immigration status, whether someone is under indictment, and drug use.

The most common reason for a gun purchase denial is a criminal conviction. Nearly 150,000 fugitives, 120,729 domestic offenders, and 109,875 unlawful drug users have been denied in the 17 years NICS has been online. For all the focus on mental health, the bar for denying someone on psychiatric grounds is very high, leading to relatively few rejections: Only 21,000 applicants have been denied because they were declared mentally unfit by a judge.

Where do those records come from?

To ascertain whether an applicant should be disqualified from owning a gun, the FBI draws from several databases: The Interstate Identification Index, a database of criminal history records; the National Crime Information Center, which includes information on people subject to orders of protection, or a restraining order; and the NICS Index, which includes illegal immigrants and those who’ve been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

State and local police are not required to submit criminal-record data to the FBI, David Chipman, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), noted in an interview with the Charlotte Observer. Reporting “varies widely based on the practices of the individual departments. The smaller the town, the worse the records.”

NICS also consults medical records submitted by each state. According to a 2013 congressional report, these records can show whether someone has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” by a “court, board, commission, or other lawful authority,” or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution — both circumstances would bar someone from purchasing a firearm. However, federal law does not require states to forward mental health records to NICS, and some states are resistant, citing privacy laws.

Is NICS the only background check available to law enforcement?

No. In addition to NICS, states can also run their own background checks, which query local databases, but only 21 choose to do so. “When a state relies on NICS, they’re not getting the full picture,” Mike McLively, a staff attorney at Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Charlotte Observer last year. “State databases include arrest records, mental health records. You’re

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c...

In 2013, there were 5723 murders recorded in the FBI stats.

https://www.nationalgangcenter...

In 2012, there were 2,363 gang-related homicides (2103 data not provided yet it seems), but it seems fair that around 2,000 gang-related homicides occur every year. In other words, about 40% of all murders in the US are gang-related homicides. With an estimated 770,000 gang members accounting for 40% (about 2300) of all murders, the rest of the population (314.8M) produced about 3360 murders, or about 1.06 murders per 100,000 non-gang people. This is clearly on par with other countries who do not have similar gang problems.

From the FBI numbers above, it also seems that black-on-black murders are quite disproportionately represented. At about 17% of the population, black-on-black murders were also about 40% of the total (2245). White-on-white murders were somewhat higher as an absolute number (2,509) but there are 195.6M whites compared to 53.6M blacks.

The numbers say that blacks murder blacks at 4.1 per 100,000; whites murder whites at about 0.77 per 100,000. Blacks also murdered 409 whites; whites murdered 189 blacks.

If we focused on eliminating the actual criminal gang element, we'd have European-level murder rates.

Indeed!

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c...

In 2013, there were 5723 murders recorded in the FBI stats.

https://www.nationalgangcenter...

In 2012, there were 2,363 gang-related homicides (2103 data not provided yet it seems), but it seems fair that around 2,000 gang-related homicides occur every year. In other words, about 40% of all murders in the US are gang-related homicides. With an estimated 770,000 gang members accounting for 40% (about 2300) of all murders, the rest of the population (314.8M) produced about 3360 murders, or about 1.06 murders per 100,000 non-gang people. This is clearly on par with other countries who do not have similar gang problems.

From the FBI numbers above, it also seems that black-on-black murders are quite disproportionately represented. At about 17% of the population, black-on-black murders were also about 40% of the total (2245). White-on-white murders were slightly higher as an absolute number (2,509) but there are 195.6M whites compared to 53.6M blacks. The numbers say that blacks murder blacks at 4.1 per 100,000; whites murder whites at about 0.77 per 100,000. Blacks also murdered 409 whites; whites murdered 189 blacks.