Slashdot Mirror

> I can't think of any serious terrorist or even violent activity by Christians in a very long time

Haven't been paying much attention to South America, have you? Extremist catholics have killed tens of thousands over the last decade.

To be perfectly honest, does anyone have statistics (recent) on the number of terrorist acts that are committed by Christians? I'd like to compare them with Islamic terrorist acts, because it seems to me that Islamic apologists need a wake-up call.

I don't know about world-wide, but in Mexico extremists in the cult of Santa Muerte are out of control.

"A recent United Nations report estimated nearly 9,000 civilians have been killed and 17,386 wounded in Iraq in 2014, more than half since ISIL fighters seized large parts on northern Iraq in June. It is likely that the group is responsible another several thousand deaths in Syria. To be sure, these numbers are staggering. But in 2013 drug cartels murdered more than 16,000 people in Mexico alone, and another 60,000 from 2006 to 2012 — a rate of more than one killing every half hour for the last seven years. What is worse, these are estimates from the Mexican government, which is known to deflate the actual death toll by about 50 percent.

Statistics alone do not convey the depravity and threat of the cartels. They carry out hundreds of beheadings every year. In addition to decapitations, the cartels are known to dismember and otherwise mutilate the corpses of their victims — displaying piles of bodies prominently in towns to terrorize the public into compliance. They routinely target women and children to further intimidate communities. Like ISIL, the cartels use social media to post graphic images of their atrocious crimes."

I am an ecologist actively campaigning against the idiocy of fracking (especially in a karst landscape like ours). I can categorically state that no-one is financing us, let alone the Russians.

You can "categorically state" it, but it may still be the truth. Matt Damon didn't know either...

Russia does not advertise such help, of course. It helps your kind remain sincere and your words — plausible. USSR — through that fun and Earth-friendly agency named KGB — penetrated various churches and "peace" forums, financed terrorists and saboteurs, the works... Most of those did not, of course, realize, where the help they were getting originates...

Today FBI warns us about Cuban intelligence targeting academics (they don't have to name Russia by name here):

Another purpose of a foreign intelligence service is to spread the influence and ideology of its regime, or damage the claims and image of another regime.

Of course, the fools used by such foreigners don't realize, they are exploited — few are bona-fide traitors...

Because blacks are over-represented in crimes statistics. Blacks make about 15% of the US population, but represent about 30% of arrests, as per FBI's numbers available here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...

I suspect that if you compared white crime with black crime, money stolen by whites would completely dwarf crime committed by blacks. Bernie Madoff anyone? Why does a 16yr old black kid deserve any more attention than some accountant in the same parking lot that's been embezzling money from his work for the past 3yrs?

Because Bernie Madoff didn't use a gun or a knife to take his loot.

Black kids do far more violent crime per capita than white kids do.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...

For murders, it is about 50/50 for whites and blacks. Except that we have FAR more white people than black people.

Stereotypes usually have some basis in reality.

Your claim that this is not an isolated event is also an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

LMAO. Whatever... let me google that for you; here you go...

In 2011, the FBI reported 1,572 hate crime victims targeted based on a sexual orientation bias, making up 20.4% of the total hate crimes for that year. Of the total victims, 56.7% were targeted based on anti-male homosexual bias, 29.6% were targeted based on anti-homosexual bias, and 11.1% were targeted based on anti-female homosexual bias.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...

But then everyone *wants* to believe gay-bashing is an epidemic

Epidemic? I didn't claim it was or wasn't an epidemic. It happens though, and its not an isolated event. Any search engine will trivially return piles of independent verifiable incidents.

So where is your evidence that this happens. Where is all this horrifying discrimination and racist violence against straight white male right handed people you claim to have been the victim of for the last 20 years? That's worse than what any homosexual suffers?

Yeah, I'm still waiting on that.

Phishing attacks are not only used to target large numbers of people. Extremely targeted phishing attacks (directed at a specific company or even a particular person) are known as "spear-phishing". For additional irony I'll point you to the FBI's site that describes this cyber-crime in detail.

I hope you enjoy your freedom while it lasts. Everyone else who agrees that this guy is a fucking moron should submit a tip here.

CAPTCHA: beacon

The only crazy thing is that you seem to thing a random post on /. is correct and don't bother to research even them most simplest detail's regarding something as important as this topic.

I'm being redundant because understand is important.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in...

Fortunately, there's more to it then that.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in...

Excellent point. I did a search on the definition of terrorism and found this FBI page: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in...

The first bullet point of the domestic section reads: - "Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"

News flash! Base jumping is accurately described as domestic terrorism. Good to know!

Clearly you have not been paying attention.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-servi...

Do you mean politicians?

With crime on an incredible downswing, I don't see how anyone can justify draconian measures for law enforcement when it is becoming less and less likely that they will be the victim of a crime.

If it’s all a "liberal" conspiracy, what are they trying to gain?

All people already in government would gain increased governmental control over the citizenry's lives — the vast majority of them believe, they "know better" than their subjects — bless our little hearts — how to live. Which is why you haven't yet seen a "green" measure proposed, that reduced that control, have you?

In addition, the "green" measures cause the Capitalism to slow down — a cause dear to the Illiberals and the foreign handlers of some of them. Seriously, scratch a "green" activist, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath...

I can see what you get to gain by denying the problem exists

Could you be more specific? What do I get to gain? Do you suppose, I — or the KKKoch brothers — have a wonderful new planet for ourselves (or our children) to emigrate to, when Earth becomes too polluted? Some kind of Elysium being built for the 1%?

All deaths in the US are analyze and reported by the CDC, including gun deaths. All other crime related statistics are reported by individual police departments to the Uniform Crime Reporting program at the FBI. Of course, accurate reporting depends on the police actually being involved to observe an incident. If a gun owner brandishes a gun to avert a rape and never reports it, it will not appear in the stats even though it actually happened. If a mugger uses a gun to threaten a victim and the victim doesn't report it, it isn't counted either.

The fact that you're not willing to even do a quick search to find out whether these things are investigated and analyzed says more about you and your emotional fog than it says about any issues here in reality.

And just why *can't* it be 2.5 million, or 1.25 million? You've got underreporting of crime just by victims, one. Then you add on top of that LEOs who *don't* actually file reports for reported crimes, or downplay them to fudge their statistics. I'll agree, we're speculating on "known unknowns" here, but it's not an unreasonable guess.

Here's some basics: http://www.fbi.gov/news/storie...

1.2 million violent crimes reported, 9 million property crimes reported. Add on top of that the rate of non-reporting by victims. Add on top of that the improper non-reporting by LEOs. 2.5 million passes the smell test at least on orders of magnitude, and you've got no facts to refute that.

But hey, forget that for a second, and think about it - would you hire more cops to reduce crime? Would you put another 10k officers out on the streets to make them safer?

Would you equip these cops with guns? Wouldn't that mean, more guns in the hands of good guys == less crime?

I don't know how you arrived at that figure. The number that I find in the report that you link to is 47 140 valid defensive uses per year. (235 700 in 5 years.)

The number of times a firearm is used in commiting a crime is not in that report. What I could find was:
Number of murders involving a fierarm, according to the FBI: about 12 000 per year
Number of robberies involving a fierarm, according to the FBI: about 170 000 per year
I didn't bother looking up the numbers for things like manslaughter and aggrevated assault, but I'm sure it's a lot.

I don't know how you arrived at that figure. The number that I find in the report that you link to is 47 140 valid defensive uses per year. (235 700 in 5 years.)

The number of times a firearm is used in commiting a crime is not in that report. What I could find was:
Number of murders involving a fierarm, according to the FBI: about 12 000 per year
Number of robberies involving a fierarm, according to the FBI: about 170 000 per year
I didn't bother looking up the numbers for things like manslaughter and aggrevated assault, but I'm sure it's a lot.

Oh wait. Yeah, I can live with the 1/10,000 chance because THOSE THINGS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN EXCEPT IN YOUR IMAGINATION.

Your imagination is failing you. The rate of violent crime isn't 1/10,000, it is nearly 40/10,000 according to the FBI (actually: 386.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012 ), which adds up to well over a million incidents in a country of 300,000,000 people. Also keep in mind that the distribution isn't even - your neighborhood may be safe, but those of other people aren't. Should they be denied the ability to defend themselves just because you think you're safe?

Or do you think the "liberal media" is covering up the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns to prevent themselves from being stabbed in our (incredibly safe) country every day?

Defensive gun use tends to be a local story only, and seldom makes the national news. And they certainly happen. But who do you think is aggregating the stories to report on a national level on a regular basis? Is someone doing that for bowling scores too? (Last night there were 37 perfect games bowled in the US.) Do you think we'll start seeing daily reports of aggregate number of either robberies in the US, or defensive use of firearms like the media likes to do with wars in a totally neutral manner? (Yet another grim milestone was reached yesterday when 3 American soldiers were killed in ______ brining the total to _______.)

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens (pdf of just the paper)

Because of the clear implication for gun control laws, a number of criminologists have prepared studies of defensive gun use incidence over the years—with startlingly different results. The most widely known is the study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, completed in the 1990s, when violent crime rates were higher than they are today. That study found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States.1

Another prominent study was the federal government’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which also asked if victims of crimes had used a gun in self-defense. That study found that there were about 108,000 defensive gun uses per year.2 The National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF) was performed in 1994. It was conducted partly because of widespread skepticism about the number of defensive gun uses reported in the Kleck and Gertz study. Still, the NSPOF study found approximately 1.5 million defensive gun uses.3

Desert Snow encouraged state and local patrol officers to post seizure data along with photos of themselves with stacks of currency and drugs

Law enforcement doing their job — and bragging about it — is fine. All professions do that, it is normal.

I don't even mind them seizing the (illegal) drugs, but possession of cash is not against the law. Unfortunately, a loophole in the American legal thinking (as well as the British, which we inherited) does not provide much protection to a person's property . Nowhere near as much as to the person himself.

The Executive can seize cash, vehicles, and even real estate without Judiciary oversight or approval — and that ought to stop. Their justification — that what they are seizing things was used for "criminal activity" — comes into play, before anyone is convicted in any criminality.

That must stop. A judge may impose limitations on using of the suspect property (and fund-transfer) — the same way movement limitations are imposed on a person, while investigation is ongoing or a trial is pending. But no seizures ought to be permitted until a "Guilty" verdict is pronounced and the sentencing enumerates, what's to be seized as a punishment.

It's time to start carrying a form of money that cannot be seized by authorities. (That is, as long as you can keep your private key a secret.) Oh dear... what are the authoritarians going to do when Bitcoin adoption goes maintream?

Desert Snow encouraged state and local patrol officers to post seizure data along with photos of themselves with stacks of currency and drugs

Law enforcement doing their job — and bragging about it — is fine. All professions do that, it is normal.

I don't even mind them seizing the (illegal) drugs, but possession of cash is not against the law. Unfortunately, a loophole in the American legal thinking (as well as the British, which we inherited) does not provide much protection to a person's property . Nowhere near as much as to the person himself.

The Executive can seize cash, vehicles, and even real estate without Judiciary oversight or approval — and that ought to stop. Their justification — that what they are seizing things was used for "criminal activity" — comes into play, before anyone is convicted in any criminality.

That must stop. A judge may impose limitations on using of the suspect property (and fund-transfer) — the same way movement limitations are imposed on a person, while investigation is ongoing or a trial is pending. But no seizures ought to be permitted until a "Guilty" verdict is pronounced and the sentencing enumerates, what's to be seized as a punishment.

It's time to start carrying a form of money that cannot be seized by authorities. (That is, as long as you can keep your private key a secret.) Oh dear... what are the authoritarians going to do when Bitcoin adoption goes maintream?

Desert Snow encouraged state and local patrol officers to post seizure data along with photos of themselves with stacks of currency and drugs

Law enforcement doing their job — and bragging about it — is fine. All professions do that, it is normal.

I don't even mind them seizing the (illegal) drugs, but possession of cash is not against the law. Unfortunately, a loophole in the American legal thinking (as well as the British, which we inherited) does not provide much protection to a person's property . Nowhere near as much as to the person himself.

The Executive can seize cash, vehicles, and even real estate without Judiciary oversight or approval — and that ought to stop. Their justification — that what they are seizing things was used for "criminal activity" — comes into play, before anyone is convicted in any criminality.

That must stop. A judge may impose limitations on using of the suspect property (and fund-transfer) — the same way movement limitations are imposed on a person, while investigation is ongoing or a trial is pending. But no seizures ought to be permitted until a "Guilty" verdict is pronounced and the sentencing enumerates, what's to be seized as a punishment.

Desert Snow encouraged state and local patrol officers to post seizure data along with photos of themselves with stacks of currency and drugs

Law enforcement doing their job — and bragging about it — is fine. All professions do that, it is normal.

I don't even mind them seizing the (illegal) drugs, but possession of cash is not against the law. Unfortunately, a loophole in the American legal thinking (as well as the British, which we inherited) does not provide much protection to a person's property . Nowhere near as much as to the person himself.

The Executive can seize cash, vehicles, and even real estate without Judiciary oversight or approval — and that ought to stop. Their justification — that what they are seizing things was used for "criminal activity" — comes into play, before anyone is convicted in any criminality.

That must stop. A judge may impose limitations on using of the suspect property (and fund-transfer) — the same way movement limitations are imposed on a person, while investigation is ongoing or a trial is pending. But no seizures ought to be permitted until a "Guilty" verdict is pronounced and the sentencing enumerates, what's to be seized as a punishment.

Consensus is the business of politics.

Exactly, darn it...

And yet, we are constantly bombarded with assertions that, though there are still perfectly valid debates in almost any other branch of science (dieting, economics, pedagogy, biology, and even computers — you name it — it is all in flux), the science of climate is "settled" and anybody doubting the line pushed by the governments must also believe, the Earth is flat.

And, for some reason, all measures proposed (and mandated) to solve the problems require the industrialized West to slow down, to not produce as much stuff, and to not enjoy themselves as much. And, for another mystery, all of the propositions lead to increased government control of both the industries and the individual lives.

Is it just, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "the natural process" of liberty yielding and government gaining ground? Or is there some foreign "help" leaning on Western academics to "settle" the branches of science, that would slow the West down and otherwise help the competing cultures prove, they aren't as inefficient as the history suggests?

he camera itself might be a tiny, tiny fraction of the salary of a cop, but it would still require a massive database and supporting infrastructure to run/maintain the entire implementation. Nor would it change the fact that people would still bring (founded and unfounded) lawsuits against the police.

Don't be ridiculous
We already bear massive costs of litigation and document storage.
This saves money two ways, Cops know they are being watched, and criminals can't make bogus claims.
The cost for several years of operation would be offset by the absence of ONE riot or bogus lawsuit.

The whole thing can be automated.
You come in from your shift, put your cam in bin, it gets copied to bulk storage.
Key in your badge number, (maybe RFID) and machine dispenses an empty camera every morning.

(Hint: storage is dirt cheap the backup/storage/indexing etc deletion can be entirely automated. )

If all you did was patrol and never had a single arrest or confrontation it gets purged in 90 days.
Every day, there better be video on the camera, or Internal Affairs is going to want to know why.

By the way: for every ridiculous example you cite there are 33,000 arrests every day that are not convoluted contrived cases. And even in the situation you describe the police video would not be enough to convict anyone. Saying you should not have evidence because you can contrive a situation where it might not be the whole store is tantamount to shutting down all scientific research world wide. You, sir, are an idiot.

There were 132,802,859 homes in the US in 2013 - http://quickfacts.census.gov/q... - which counts individual rooms rented out as a "home".

There were1,393,152 burglaries of home in 2009 - https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2...

Assuming those numbers haven't varied too much then, yes if homes have average existence of 20 years (the one I'm in right now is older than that) 1 in 5 will be burglarized in their "entire existance".

And of course you are using unreported sexual assaults in your numbers. There are also unreported burglaries that aren't in the burglary numbers - if you don't have insurance there's no reason to report after all. If it was your stash of drugs that were stolen you aren't going to call the police. When your child broke in and pawned off some of your stuff you are probably not going to report the crime. And so on.

Rap songs have also glorified murdering people, murder culture?

This article does not: http://www.fbi.gov/news/storie...

Yes, the second article linked in the summary does not call the passport a fake, but neither does it call it real. The article talks about "passport fraud", which is using either a real or fake passport in a fraudulent way, or providing false data for a real passport.

It is a reasonable assumption that the passport was real based on the fact the government had a copy of it. Why the BBC would call it a fake, then, is a question.

"Third paragraph, third sentence of the article [bbc.com]:"

This article does not: http://www.fbi.gov/news/storie...

That article states "Stammer’s face matched a person whose passport photo carried a different name. Suspecting fraud, the agent contacted the Bureau".

.

The unmentionable.

Companies like Synagro and WeCare Organics take municipal waste and deposit it on farm fields where your food is grown.

There is a lot of money in this - the kitty is so rich, sometimes back room deals are made to keep the gravy train rolling and sludge hauling contracts active.

Powerful lobbies, such as the WEF and AWWA "educate" the political establishment to keep nutrient standards low.

Look up what happened in the Chesapake Bay....

Algae blooms are the inevitable result.

On the other side, people have been trying for years to get labeling standards improved so consumers can make informed choices as to if they want to eat food grown in sludge, but year over year the bill dies in committee. The opposing side doesn't have the money to counter the powerful WEF lobby, so congressional masters kill the bill in committee every year its introduced.

One can only hope is that now that algae blooms are happening with greater frequency and more people are being impacted, that new nutrient standards will become the norm and this sludge spreading nonsense will end.

http://www.fbi.gov/

Not likely. A federal judge walking around in public has extra powers, by virtue of being a peace officer;

Bullshit, federal judges are not peace officers.

but these judges also have the power to make warrantless arrests under various conditions and are legally allowed to carry sidearms and other law enforcement tools with them, even onboard.

Horseshit. You are trying to refer to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). "Qualified officers may not carry concealed weapons onto aircraft under the act."

http://vault.fbi.gov/National%...

it is actually a bit a stretch.

1st thing, the US is actually not that bad. with 4.8 murders per 100k people, we are no-where near the bad part of town.

on the other hand, here are the top 5, from data in this 2012 report.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...

city and m/100k
detroit 54.58
baltimore 35.01
philadelphia 21.50
memphis 20.23
chicago 18.48

subtracting the population and murders from the US, and the US moves to around 4.1. removing DC and we move to 4.09.
cities containing 2% of the US population account for 11% of the murders.

Lets not forget in performance based law enforcement the definition of violent crime was changed some years back in order to make the numbers look better "In the FBIâ(TM)s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault" http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj..., in most countries and earlier in the US all assaults and threats were violent crimes. Also people are becoming more afraid of reporting crime in the US as a result to violent interactions with law enforcement.

As for guns, you only look at crimes committed with firearms not all violent crimes. Reality here is out of the mouth of the Sheriff himself, their primary role is protecting and serving law enforcement and the public are part of the war zone, the enemy. I can't believe that idiot said it out loud, you Americans really are screwed, not that you don't deserve it. You taught them all in Iraq and the Iraqis suffered for it and then you hired them as law enforcement and now you lot are suffering for it, Nelson Muntz laugh is most appropriate here https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... Shootings by law enforcement have of course risen out of control. Armoured cars and machine guns, shaven heads and testosterone supplements, hiring for lower IQ's, arrest based performance measures, yep, that's going turn out well, uh huh, it's a fucking war zone alright and the public is not the enemy, at least in the US.

We have more guns. (Per person!) According to our own government's statistics. Yet we have less violent crime. This is a direct, indisputable DISproof of the idea that "more guns equals more crime".

You're comparing the wrong things. Yes, gun ownership is increasing in the US. Yes, violent crimes are decreasing in the US.

But lets look at how violent crimes are defined in the FBI statistics

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

My point is that the violent crimes count includes both incidents where firearms were and were not involved.

What is interesting however, is that firearms are increasingly being used in violent crimes.

Dont take my word for it-

In 2010, firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults.

In 2011, firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults

In 2012, firearms were used in 69.3 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.0 percent of robberies, and 21.8 percent of aggravated assaults.

Figures for 2013 onwards are not yet available.

I think its correct (as well as common sense) to conclude that making weapons more easily available increased the likelihood it will be used in violent crimes.

We have more guns. (Per person!) According to our own government's statistics. Yet we have less violent crime. This is a direct, indisputable DISproof of the idea that "more guns equals more crime".

You're comparing the wrong things. Yes, gun ownership is increasing in the US. Yes, violent crimes are decreasing in the US.

But lets look at how violent crimes are defined in the FBI statistics

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

My point is that the violent crimes count includes both incidents where firearms were and were not involved.

What is interesting however, is that firearms are increasingly being used in violent crimes.

Dont take my word for it-

In 2010, firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults.

In 2011, firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults

In 2012, firearms were used in 69.3 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.0 percent of robberies, and 21.8 percent of aggravated assaults.

Figures for 2013 onwards are not yet available.

I think its correct (as well as common sense) to conclude that making weapons more easily available increased the likelihood it will be used in violent crimes.

We have more guns. (Per person!) According to our own government's statistics. Yet we have less violent crime. This is a direct, indisputable DISproof of the idea that "more guns equals more crime".

You're comparing the wrong things. Yes, gun ownership is increasing in the US. Yes, violent crimes are decreasing in the US.

But lets look at how violent crimes are defined in the FBI statistics

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

My point is that the violent crimes count includes both incidents where firearms were and were not involved.

What is interesting however, is that firearms are increasingly being used in violent crimes.

Dont take my word for it-

In 2010, firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults.

In 2011, firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults

In 2012, firearms were used in 69.3 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.0 percent of robberies, and 21.8 percent of aggravated assaults.

Figures for 2013 onwards are not yet available.

I think its correct (as well as common sense) to conclude that making weapons more easily available increased the likelihood it will be used in violent crimes.

We have more guns. (Per person!) According to our own government's statistics. Yet we have less violent crime. This is a direct, indisputable DISproof of the idea that "more guns equals more crime".

You're comparing the wrong things. Yes, gun ownership is increasing in the US. Yes, violent crimes are decreasing in the US.

But lets look at how violent crimes are defined in the FBI statistics

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

My point is that the violent crimes count includes both incidents where firearms were and were not involved.

What is interesting however, is that firearms are increasingly being used in violent crimes.

Dont take my word for it-

In 2010, firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults.

In 2011, firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults

In 2012, firearms were used in 69.3 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.0 percent of robberies, and 21.8 percent of aggravated assaults.

Figures for 2013 onwards are not yet available.

I think its correct (as well as common sense) to conclude that making weapons more easily available increased the likelihood it will be used in violent crimes.

Copyright infringement is not legally considered stealing.

Sure, it is: article, fbi. It's almost like shoplifting but at a higher level. The only difference between a physical and intangible product is the duplication cost, which should not make one product payable and the other free. If you derive benefit from someone's work, whether it's tangible or intangible, you have to pay their selling price, otherwise it's stealing. I will admit that piracy has some benefit: it forces manufacturers to lower their prices in some cases, and prevents price gouging.

You seem to think that people should be handed little monopolies for their specific ideas, while I disagree.

The only thing that protects ideas are patents, not copyrights, and even patents don't technically protect ideas: they only protect apparatus or method for an invention. Using words like monopolies is completely wrong in the context of copyrights. I may have a copyright on a book that contains a sentence: The black grasshopper bounced around the lawn. Well, you infringe my copyright if you copy that book, and that sentence, word for word. But you can get around the copyright by rephrasing that sentence as: The lawn was filled with hopping grasshoppers. See, there's no monopoly of ideas, and that's how movies copy little ideas from other movies or books.

According to the 2010 FBI crime reports, suicide is not included in the statistics for "murder". http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...

Yes. The argument often made for women not to carry firearms is that it'll be taken away from them and used against them.

If they're willing to fire it, it's very, very hard to take a gun away from somebody if it's in their hands.

Still, for a statistic on how many people are killed by their own weapons after being disarmed, I came up with a rate of 5% of police officers being murdered by their own weapon, as an average over the last decade(25 out of 535).

It's important to note that I figure that the guns were probably stolen out of the officer's holster, not out of his hands in most cases.

Review of FBI reports on slain officers in 2012 shows that 1 officer is listed as being killed with his own weapon, however I did not find such in the narrative, but the FBI site mentions that not all cases have a publically available narrative, for various reasons. I only found one where such a system would have been helpful, which involved using a slain officer's weapon to injure a tow truck driver and 2 other officers(1 fatally).

A corporal and a trooper with the West Virginia State Police, Clay County, were fatally wounded while preparing to transport a DUI suspect around 8 p.m. on August 28. The 42-year-old veteran corporal, who had nearly 17 years of law enforcement experience, was patrolling an interstate in a marked cruiser with the 26-year-old trooper, who had approximately 1.5 years' law enforcement experience. Following a report of a person driving a pickup truck in an erratic manner, the officers spotted the vehicle stopped in a âoepark and rideâ lot just off the interstate. (It was later revealed that the vehicle had been reported stolen earlier in the day, but it had not yet been entered into the National Crime Information Center at the time of the incident.) The driver, who was under the influence of narcotics at the time, was taken into custody. With hands cuffed in front of him, the suspect was placed in the back seat of the cruiser while the corporal and trooper searched his vehicle. When they got back in the cruiser (which was not equipped with a prisoner barrier), the suspect produced a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun he had hidden in his groin area. He shot the victim corporal twice in the rear of the head and the victim trooper in the neck/throat above his body armor. The suspect then unlocked his handcuffs, removed the victim corporal's .45-caliber handgun, and exited the cruiser. About this time, a tow truck the victims had requested arrived. The suspect shot the tow truck driver in the arm with the victim corporal's .45-caliber service weapon and fled the scene. The tow truck driver called for assistance and law enforcement officers from the Roane County and Clay County Sheriff's Departments as well as the Spencer Police Department responded. The tow truck driver, who was later treated for his wound and released, indicated the direction the suspect had fled and the officers began to search for him. As several deputies approached a ditch line, the suspect fired on them from a concealed position. A 43-year-old Roane County deputy, with nearly 4 years of law enforcement experience, was struck in both arms. The victim deputy was also struck in the front upper torso/chest and rear upper torso/back, but his body armor prevented the rounds from penetrating his torso. The officers returned gunfire at the 22-year-old suspect and justifiably killed him. The suspect had a prior criminal record, which included violent crime, drug violations, and police assault. The victim corporal was pronounced dead at the scene of the incident; the victim trooper and the victim deputy were taken to a medical center by helicopter. The victim deputy underwent sur

Yes. The argument often made for women not to carry firearms is that it'll be taken away from them and used against them.

If they're willing to fire it, it's very, very hard to take a gun away from somebody if it's in their hands.

Still, for a statistic on how many people are killed by their own weapons after being disarmed, I came up with a rate of 5% of police officers being murdered by their own weapon, as an average over the last decade(25 out of 535).

It's important to note that I figure that the guns were probably stolen out of the officer's holster, not out of his hands in most cases.

Review of FBI reports on slain officers in 2012 shows that 1 officer is listed as being killed with his own weapon, however I did not find such in the narrative, but the FBI site mentions that not all cases have a publically available narrative, for various reasons. I only found one where such a system would have been helpful, which involved using a slain officer's weapon to injure a tow truck driver and 2 other officers(1 fatally).

A corporal and a trooper with the West Virginia State Police, Clay County, were fatally wounded while preparing to transport a DUI suspect around 8 p.m. on August 28. The 42-year-old veteran corporal, who had nearly 17 years of law enforcement experience, was patrolling an interstate in a marked cruiser with the 26-year-old trooper, who had approximately 1.5 years' law enforcement experience. Following a report of a person driving a pickup truck in an erratic manner, the officers spotted the vehicle stopped in a âoepark and rideâ lot just off the interstate. (It was later revealed that the vehicle had been reported stolen earlier in the day, but it had not yet been entered into the National Crime Information Center at the time of the incident.) The driver, who was under the influence of narcotics at the time, was taken into custody. With hands cuffed in front of him, the suspect was placed in the back seat of the cruiser while the corporal and trooper searched his vehicle. When they got back in the cruiser (which was not equipped with a prisoner barrier), the suspect produced a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun he had hidden in his groin area. He shot the victim corporal twice in the rear of the head and the victim trooper in the neck/throat above his body armor. The suspect then unlocked his handcuffs, removed the victim corporal's .45-caliber handgun, and exited the cruiser. About this time, a tow truck the victims had requested arrived. The suspect shot the tow truck driver in the arm with the victim corporal's .45-caliber service weapon and fled the scene. The tow truck driver called for assistance and law enforcement officers from the Roane County and Clay County Sheriff's Departments as well as the Spencer Police Department responded. The tow truck driver, who was later treated for his wound and released, indicated the direction the suspect had fled and the officers began to search for him. As several deputies approached a ditch line, the suspect fired on them from a concealed position. A 43-year-old Roane County deputy, with nearly 4 years of law enforcement experience, was struck in both arms. The victim deputy was also struck in the front upper torso/chest and rear upper torso/back, but his body armor prevented the rounds from penetrating his torso. The officers returned gunfire at the 22-year-old suspect and justifiably killed him. The suspect had a prior criminal record, which included violent crime, drug violations, and police assault. The victim corporal was pronounced dead at the scene of the incident; the victim trooper and the victim deputy were taken to a medical center by helicopter. The victim deputy underwent sur

I don't agree with everything you said, so here's my comments.

Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed.

True. These types tend to fixate upon 'gun crime', and worse tend to give us the perception that they're willfully ignorant. They want to ban 'assault weapons', IE scary looking semi-automatic rifles when 72% of firearm murders are by handguns. Shotguns are normally used in more murders than *ALL* rifles. They want to ban .50BMG, used in approximately ZERO murders or crimes(Each round costing ~$20 and fired from a rifle that can't be shot unsupported and is normally 5+ feet long might have something to do with that...). They want to ban high capacity magazines when the average number of shots fired in a confrontation with a semi-automatic is 3.5(2.5 out of revolvers). Etc...

The general consensus is that gun-grabbers are doing the same things that conservative anti-abortion types are trying: Make guns so expensive and such a hassle that most don't bother. We don't like that.

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.)

I'll note that their gun bans have been shot down by the Supreme Court recently.

Personally, I'm all for allowing the sale of Biometric/fire control firearms. I'm just scared of the prospect of states and other jurisdictions *REQUIRING* them before they're well enough developed that the police are willing to use them. Nearly 5% of 'feloniously killed' were killed by their own weapon over the last 10 years. (25 out of 535). Despite this, even in states where they support the most gun control, the police will lobby to the hilt to exempt themselves from any such requirements.

Honestly enough, my figuring:
1. "Smart Guns" will not stop their use for suicide by authorized users. (~19k suicides by firearm; 14k murders by all methods; 69% firearm)
2. SG will not stop criminal action by authorized users
3. Smart Guns will not hold against being reset/modified to remove the function if stolen.
4. I hear more about guns being taken from criminals than citizens trying to use them to defend themselves from criminals.

In short, until they've proven themselves reliable enough for police use where professional armorer support is available for maintenance, I don't think they're ready for private use either.

I don't agree with everything you said, so here's my comments.

Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed.

True. These types tend to fixate upon 'gun crime', and worse tend to give us the perception that they're willfully ignorant. They want to ban 'assault weapons', IE scary looking semi-automatic rifles when 72% of firearm murders are by handguns. Shotguns are normally used in more murders than *ALL* rifles. They want to ban .50BMG, used in approximately ZERO murders or crimes(Each round costing ~$20 and fired from a rifle that can't be shot unsupported and is normally 5+ feet long might have something to do with that...). They want to ban high capacity magazines when the average number of shots fired in a confrontation with a semi-automatic is 3.5(2.5 out of revolvers). Etc...

The general consensus is that gun-grabbers are doing the same things that conservative anti-abortion types are trying: Make guns so expensive and such a hassle that most don't bother. We don't like that.

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.)

I'll note that their gun bans have been shot down by the Supreme Court recently.

Personally, I'm all for allowing the sale of Biometric/fire control firearms. I'm just scared of the prospect of states and other jurisdictions *REQUIRING* them before they're well enough developed that the police are willing to use them. Nearly 5% of 'feloniously killed' were killed by their own weapon over the last 10 years. (25 out of 535). Despite this, even in states where they support the most gun control, the police will lobby to the hilt to exempt themselves from any such requirements.

Honestly enough, my figuring:
1. "Smart Guns" will not stop their use for suicide by authorized users. (~19k suicides by firearm; 14k murders by all methods; 69% firearm)
2. SG will not stop criminal action by authorized users
3. Smart Guns will not hold against being reset/modified to remove the function if stolen.
4. I hear more about guns being taken from criminals than citizens trying to use them to defend themselves from criminals.

In short, until they've proven themselves reliable enough for police use where professional armorer support is available for maintenance, I don't think they're ready for private use either.

According to the FBI11 officers were killed with their own weapon in 2003, but that dropped to 1 in 2012. I wonder what changed.

The 11 dumbest got killed off.

According to the FBI11 officers were killed with their own weapon in 2003, but that dropped to 1 in 2012. I wonder what changed.

Crime is one area we have plenty of statistics. Excluding 'other races' and 'unknown', black's are only marginally more likely to found to have committed a homicide.

Increased punishment as deterrence measurably does not work. Period. We don't need to go into the details of specific kinds of crime to discuss that.

The FBI has an overview of how and why they deal with hate crime if there's anything besides that that concerns you.

I would be more concerned with ads giving away free knives, those lead to more murders than rifles do. Now handguns are a whole other matter. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius20...

It is entirely possible that neither of our experiences represents the true "average".

I can assure you that fear (either for physical safety or simply for harassment) is often a motivation for why proper documentation does not happen. My very good friend has been a victim of physical intimidation. My wife and her co-workers have been harassed through mass, bogus grievances after going through proper documentation channels. The savvy managers simply track when the bad eggs come in each day. Fortunately, everyone has a few late days and too many violates the contract. Quite obviously, this kind of bullshit leads to mutual suspicion and a terrible work environment all around. Of course, I'm in a union-friendly city (Philadelphia). The feds just arrested a bunch of thugs for vandalizing a church that was being constructed with non-union labor.

Now, I'm not necessarily anti-union in concept - just as I am not anti-corporation in concept. But this shit has got to change. Corporations and unions are both out of control - two sides of the same corrupt coin. We need reform of money entering the public system from such organizations, and physical violence and intimidation is straight-up no good.