Slashdot Mirror

We have an entire branch of the Federal government with 17,000 employees dedicated to fighting wage theft. You can argue they're not doing a good enough job, or that the victims aren't reporting the crime enough. But it's hardly unaddressed.

Also, your source seems to have cherry picked specific robbery statistics to try to push their narrative. According to the FBI, robberies cost $465 million in 2016, nearly double the wage theft your source specifies.

Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.

What does that 17% mean? Do you think NBC did due diligence in understanding the numbers to give you an accurate picture of reality? Or do you think they headlined a specific narrative?

Now if you ignore what the media say and go to the actual FBI press release you will understand why there was a super scary increase in hate crime for 2017.

. Although the numbers increased last year, so did the number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data—with approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributing information.

That is a very different reality than what narrative is being pushed. Now you may think that a year to year raw comprison is valid but the FBI doesn't as they caution against that very type of analysis.

Valid assessments about crime, including hate crime, are possible only with careful study and analysis of the various conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. (See Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use.) In addition, some data in this publication may not be comparable to those in prior editions of Hate Crime Statistics because of differing levels of participation from year to year. Therefore, the reader is cautioned against making simplistic comparisons between the statistical data of this program and that of others with differing methodologies or even comparing individual reporting units solely on the basis of their agency type.

NBC and others did exactly what the FBI cautioned against. Color me shocked.

Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar. Now, that you have supporting data; Am I still a liar or are you the one in a fantasy because everything you said is bullshit.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime...

6121 in 2016.
5850 in 2015.
This is the 4% total hate crime incident spike talked about for 2016.

3489 in 2016 were racially motivated
3310 in 2015 were racially motivated
This is a 5% to describe the racially motivated spike many news outlets were talking about for 2016.

Of those racially motivated attacks the largest single share increase year over was anti-white motivations with a +107 increase. That was the largest "spike" in any other specific hate crime incident. But it is hardly a spike and that is why I said it had a "marginal effect".

The "spike" often reported by news and partisans is a simplistic view of the data that doesn't go into the details. Keep in mind that even the FBI cautions people from making simplistic year to year comparisons without careful analysis. Partly because the methodology changes which has a larger impact on the data which is why I said "big effect".

Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar. Now, that you have supporting data; Am I still a liar or are you the one in a fantasy because everything you said is bullshit.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime...

6121 in 2016.
5850 in 2015.
This is the 4% total hate crime incident spike talked about for 2016.

3489 in 2016 were racially motivated
3310 in 2015 were racially motivated
This is a 5% to describe the racially motivated spike many news outlets were talking about for 2016.

Of those racially motivated attacks the largest single share increase year over was anti-white motivations with a +107 increase. That was the largest "spike" in any other specific hate crime incident. But it is hardly a spike and that is why I said it had a "marginal effect".

The "spike" often reported by news and partisans is a simplistic view of the data that doesn't go into the details. Keep in mind that even the FBI cautions people from making simplistic year to year comparisons without careful analysis. Partly because the methodology changes which has a larger impact on the data which is why I said "big effect".

Sorry, you're wrong. She had a few emails within terabytes of data that had a few minor nits.

James Comey disagrees. Hundreds of classified and top secret e-mails, not "a few" and not "minor nits". Even then, Mr. Comey stated:

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.

The ONLY reason Hillary was excused was because she was politically connected. People with the same level of violations would have faced security and administrative sanctions, at a minimum. Per James Comey.

But there are two sets of rules - one for the common people, and one for the politically connected...

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.

here

and how about this one, quote: "The vast sums of money involved can compromise legitimate economies and have a direct impact on governments through the corruption of public officials."

This found via a casual one-minute google search.

All you can do is mock and ridicule, because you don't have the education needed to participate in such a discussion.

If only the Clinton campaign and the DNC were so ethical. They did, after all, pay Fusion GPS to hire British agent Christopher Steele to work with the Russians to come up with the fake dossier in the first place, as justification for lying to the FISA courts to get inside information on the Trump campaign. If that's not conspiracy and collusion with foreign Governments, I don't know what is...

Christopher Steele is well known and respected by US IC. There was never any evidence of Steele acting in bad faith despite considerable efforts to illicit such.

Apparently you are one of those special idiots who believe invoking talking points and making baseless characterizations magically provides credence to your words when in fact all it does is show how much of a partisan hack you are.

What makes matters considerably worse for you is what you are saying is provably wrong. Details of the FISA warrant at issue was released:
https://vault.fbi.gov/d1-relea...

There is no excuse for continuing to cling to notion Steele dossier had shit all to do with the FISA warrants when it provably did not. Continuing to promulgate bullshit talking points when it is clearly and provably false is a reflection of your own ignorance and considerable internal capacity to fool yourself into believing what you are predisposed to want to believe.

No, read what Comey said. He said there was plenty of illegal happenings, including handling of classified and top secret information. But he unilaterally decided that a prosecutor wouldn't charge, so he would not recommend anything.

There was no saying "we're not sure what there was, since that wasn't our purview" like with Mueller; this was "there was lots of illegal activity, but we don't think it was on purpose and prosecutors probably won't charge so we'll ignore the crime".

Plenty of evidence of a crime, just an unwillingness to prosecute it. I don't care if you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Communist - willfully ignoring to charge actual crimes should be abhorrent to all but the most strident political hacks.

Ballot harvesting is illegal in North Carolina and Mark Harris and his campaign weren't just accused of collecting ballots and turning them in. They were destroying ballots that voted against him, filling in those that were left blank and forging witness signatures.

That is ILLEGAL in EVERY state.

California law allows a mail-in voter to designate any person to return the ballot to the elections official from whom it came or to the precinct board at a polling place within the jurisdiction. . There has been no evidence to suggest any ballots were not turned in or were marked by the "ballot harvesters" in California.

In Texas, it looks like the harvesters pleaded guilty or are currently awaiting trial.

Forgive us for not having heard about ballot harvesting for a county commissioner and a school board seat in a Texas town of about 17,000 people or even not having heard about an alleged scheme to harvest votes for unspecified "down-ballot candidates" in a city the size of Fort Worth. Interestingly enough, the Texas AG who is prosecuting the latter has been under criminal indictment for over 3 years. And what are those Republicans doing meeting with one of the accused in jail?

And I'd bet you didn't notice these Democrats who were convicted and sentenced in Arkansas either:

Hallum pleaded guilty last September to felony conspiracy to commit election fraud, resigning his seat on the day of his plea.

Yes, most of us didn't hear about a corrupt state legislator in Arkansas either.

BUT in North Carolina, we're talking about a candidate for the US House of Representatives in a very contentious battle between Dems and Republicans to win as many Congressional seats as possible. Of course anyone who is paying attention has heard of it.

"The prospective purchase was rejected after a background check flagged the order, prosecutors said."

The system works when properly used. The key is NICS data being accurate.

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cou...

Evil looks ugly.

The FBI tracks crime statistics by race. White people commit almost 70% of the crimes (2016). https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

Hmmm. Seems whitey is doing most of it according to uniform crime stats.

2016 UCR

But don't let facts interfere with your racism. If that blanket keeps you warm, while you grow poorer and the rest of us "brown" people grow richer, that is your deal. We have no problem taking your jobs, your money, your women, and hopefully shove you out completely.

"As has frequently been the case in the US".

So you mean almost never. Statistically speaking.

It's like being scared of AR-15s. Murders by all rifles together (so AR-15s plus every other rifle in existence in the USA), account for less deaths each year than by knives, blunt objects, or fists. As a firearm they present the less danger to American society than the fists on the person standing next to you. Yet they are a red-herring rallying point for a lot of people.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/0...

and most of Trump's "lies" are carnival barker exagerations like "I hire all the best people" or "I have the greatest brain!"

Now: just how many hundred times did Obama lie to all the American people about something critical to their very lives?
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, PERIOD!"
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, PERIOD!"

And how many times did Obama lie about national security issues, sometimes while committing serious felonies?

He claimed no money went to Iran related to his nuke deal..... before it was discovered thast he had sent BILLIONS of dollars there in unmarked currency on pallets aboard unmarked planes (at a time when sending cash to Iran was a felony - it still is, which is why Bill Clinton had to pardon his old buddy Mark Rich so the guy could return to America and not land in prison).

He claimed he made a deal to release some terrorists from Gitmo to a South American country where they would stay; none stayed in that country and that country says Obama made no provision for them to stay there.

He claimed to know nothing about Hillary's private email server, but it turns out he was regularly communicating with her on it and he was using an alias to do it according to the FBI. THIS is why Hillary was not prosecuted for her felony act of moving classified info through her private server; it would have required the prosecution of president Obama for the same felony.

Hillary Clinton violated policy in her email handling, but the investigation concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to make a case that she committed a crime.

Now you're making things up. Quotes from Comey's statement:

"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." Also: "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."

That latter statement is not "she's innocent" or "there's no evidence", it's a pretty clear "there is evidence" and "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He's right, no prosecutor is going to waste the time and effort to counter every legal maneuver that Clinton's team would make to try to avoid a guilty verdict. And nobody wants to take down the golden girl who "won the election" (if only the rules for how to win the election were different!)

Do you think that after I offer stats and reasoning, that your hollow insults prove that you occupy some kind of high ground? No.

You have not offered any stats or reasoning. As far as I can see, you presented a couple of numbers with no sources for those numbers and no definitions of what they mean.

In case anyone who happens to read this is actually interested in how such analysis can be done, I offer this. First, I find it helpful to make a list of knowns and unknowns: (1) Some number of deaths occur. (2) Of the deaths that occur, some will be detected within some period of time, while others will not be detected. (3) Of the deaths detected, some will be classified as homicide. Some of these classifications will be erroneous, in both directions: manner of death may be classified as homicide when it actually wasn't, and some actual homicides will be classified otherwise. (4) Of the cases in which the manner of death is homicide, in some cases some perpetrator will be identified; in other cases, no perpetrator will be identified. This is a key point. (5) Some of these identifications will be erroneous: the wrong person will be identified.

Now we can look at some actual numbers, from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2016, the latest year available:

Table 1: Note the column "Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" for the year 2016: 17,250.

Table 5: "Offense Analysis", Murder, 2016: again, 17,250 (although this title doesn't mention "nonnegligent manslaughter").

Next: Expanded Homicide Data Table 3, showing the races of victims and offenders. When I added up the numbers, I got a total of 6,676 victims and 6,676 offenders.

17,250 (total homicides) - 6,676 (total offenders) = 10,574, which is 61% of the total. So this table is missing 61% of the crimes listed in the previous table. Where did they go? See the footnote: "This table is based on incidents where some information about the offender is known by law enforcement; therefore, this table excludes data when the offender age, sex, race, and ethnicity are all reported as unknown."

Again, a key concept: In 61% of the murders reported, the race of the offender was NOT KNOWN. So your assertion that "nígger males account for just over 50% of all US murders" is just not supported by evidence.

Further, consider the cases in which "race" of the "offender" is "known" (for some definition of "race", "offender", and "known"):

White offender: 2854 + 243 + 56 + 43 = 3196 (48%)

Black offender: 533 + 2570 + 37 + 16 = 3156 (47%)

Other: 40 + 17 + 123 + 4 = 184 (2.8%)

Race Unknown: 72 + 40 + 5 + 23 = 140 (2.1%)

(Total) 6676

So, in 2016, slightly fewer than half the murders (not "over 50%") were committed by black people and half by white people -- again, only considering those cases in which the race of the offender was known, which comprised 39% of all cases identified as homicide. Assuming these numbers are correct, an offender was classified as black in 48% of 39%, or 19%, of all homicides. Again, in 61% of homicides, the race of the offender was not known.

I don't know the FBI definitions for "race" or "offender", but I do know the "clearance rate" in most of the US is less than 50%, and for most jurisdictions, "clearance" means that some suspect has been arrested for a crime (usually within the same reporting year in which the crime was detected). Not convicted, not even guilty by plea bargain -- just arrested. How many of those are actually guilty, of course no one really knows. The low clearance rate partially explains the number of cases in which race of the offender was not known, because no offender was identified.

Do you think that after I offer stats and reasoning, that your hollow insults prove that you occupy some kind of high ground? No.

You have not offered any stats or reasoning. As far as I can see, you presented a couple of numbers with no sources for those numbers and no definitions of what they mean.

In case anyone who happens to read this is actually interested in how such analysis can be done, I offer this. First, I find it helpful to make a list of knowns and unknowns: (1) Some number of deaths occur. (2) Of the deaths that occur, some will be detected within some period of time, while others will not be detected. (3) Of the deaths detected, some will be classified as homicide. Some of these classifications will be erroneous, in both directions: manner of death may be classified as homicide when it actually wasn't, and some actual homicides will be classified otherwise. (4) Of the cases in which the manner of death is homicide, in some cases some perpetrator will be identified; in other cases, no perpetrator will be identified. This is a key point. (5) Some of these identifications will be erroneous: the wrong person will be identified.

Now we can look at some actual numbers, from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2016, the latest year available:

Table 1: Note the column "Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" for the year 2016: 17,250.

Table 5: "Offense Analysis", Murder, 2016: again, 17,250 (although this title doesn't mention "nonnegligent manslaughter").

Next: Expanded Homicide Data Table 3, showing the races of victims and offenders. When I added up the numbers, I got a total of 6,676 victims and 6,676 offenders.

17,250 (total homicides) - 6,676 (total offenders) = 10,574, which is 61% of the total. So this table is missing 61% of the crimes listed in the previous table. Where did they go? See the footnote: "This table is based on incidents where some information about the offender is known by law enforcement; therefore, this table excludes data when the offender age, sex, race, and ethnicity are all reported as unknown."

Again, a key concept: In 61% of the murders reported, the race of the offender was NOT KNOWN. So your assertion that "nígger males account for just over 50% of all US murders" is just not supported by evidence.

Further, consider the cases in which "race" of the "offender" is "known" (for some definition of "race", "offender", and "known"):

White offender: 2854 + 243 + 56 + 43 = 3196 (48%)

Black offender: 533 + 2570 + 37 + 16 = 3156 (47%)

Other: 40 + 17 + 123 + 4 = 184 (2.8%)

Race Unknown: 72 + 40 + 5 + 23 = 140 (2.1%)

(Total) 6676

So, in 2016, slightly fewer than half the murders (not "over 50%") were committed by black people and half by white people -- again, only considering those cases in which the race of the offender was known, which comprised 39% of all cases identified as homicide. Assuming these numbers are correct, an offender was classified as black in 48% of 39%, or 19%, of all homicides. Again, in 61% of homicides, the race of the offender was not known.

I don't know the FBI definitions for "race" or "offender", but I do know the "clearance rate" in most of the US is less than 50%, and for most jurisdictions, "clearance" means that some suspect has been arrested for a crime (usually within the same reporting year in which the crime was detected). Not convicted, not even guilty by plea bargain -- just arrested. How many of those are actually guilty, of course no one really knows. The low clearance rate partially explains the number of cases in which race of the offender was not known, because no offender was identified.

Do you think that after I offer stats and reasoning, that your hollow insults prove that you occupy some kind of high ground? No.

You have not offered any stats or reasoning. As far as I can see, you presented a couple of numbers with no sources for those numbers and no definitions of what they mean.

In case anyone who happens to read this is actually interested in how such analysis can be done, I offer this. First, I find it helpful to make a list of knowns and unknowns: (1) Some number of deaths occur. (2) Of the deaths that occur, some will be detected within some period of time, while others will not be detected. (3) Of the deaths detected, some will be classified as homicide. Some of these classifications will be erroneous, in both directions: manner of death may be classified as homicide when it actually wasn't, and some actual homicides will be classified otherwise. (4) Of the cases in which the manner of death is homicide, in some cases some perpetrator will be identified; in other cases, no perpetrator will be identified. This is a key point. (5) Some of these identifications will be erroneous: the wrong person will be identified.

Now we can look at some actual numbers, from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2016, the latest year available:

Table 1: Note the column "Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" for the year 2016: 17,250.

Table 5: "Offense Analysis", Murder, 2016: again, 17,250 (although this title doesn't mention "nonnegligent manslaughter").

Next: Expanded Homicide Data Table 3, showing the races of victims and offenders. When I added up the numbers, I got a total of 6,676 victims and 6,676 offenders.

17,250 (total homicides) - 6,676 (total offenders) = 10,574, which is 61% of the total. So this table is missing 61% of the crimes listed in the previous table. Where did they go? See the footnote: "This table is based on incidents where some information about the offender is known by law enforcement; therefore, this table excludes data when the offender age, sex, race, and ethnicity are all reported as unknown."

Again, a key concept: In 61% of the murders reported, the race of the offender was NOT KNOWN. So your assertion that "nígger males account for just over 50% of all US murders" is just not supported by evidence.

Further, consider the cases in which "race" of the "offender" is "known" (for some definition of "race", "offender", and "known"):

White offender: 2854 + 243 + 56 + 43 = 3196 (48%)

Black offender: 533 + 2570 + 37 + 16 = 3156 (47%)

Other: 40 + 17 + 123 + 4 = 184 (2.8%)

Race Unknown: 72 + 40 + 5 + 23 = 140 (2.1%)

(Total) 6676

So, in 2016, slightly fewer than half the murders (not "over 50%") were committed by black people and half by white people -- again, only considering those cases in which the race of the offender was known, which comprised 39% of all cases identified as homicide. Assuming these numbers are correct, an offender was classified as black in 48% of 39%, or 19%, of all homicides. Again, in 61% of homicides, the race of the offender was not known.

I don't know the FBI definitions for "race" or "offender", but I do know the "clearance rate" in most of the US is less than 50%, and for most jurisdictions, "clearance" means that some suspect has been arrested for a crime (usually within the same reporting year in which the crime was detected). Not convicted, not even guilty by plea bargain -- just arrested. How many of those are actually guilty, of course no one really knows. The low clearance rate partially explains the number of cases in which race of the offender was not known, because no offender was identified.

Blacks are about 13 pecent of the US population.

According to the FBI they account for 53.1% of all murder arrests, 28.7% of all rape arrests, and 54.3% of all arrests for robbery.

Hispanics and Latinos (browns) account for: 20.8% of arrests for murder, 27% of arrests for rape, and 22.3% of arrests for robbery.

Together they account for: 73.9% of all murder arrests, 55.7% of all rape arrests, and 75.6% of all robbery arrests.

By contrast, whites account for: 23.4% of all arrests for murder, 40.5% of all arrests for rape, and 22.3% of all arrests for robbery. America is currently about 65% white.

The current media code-word for "young black criminal males" is "teenagers". I had no idea someone in their early 20s could be teen-agers.

James Comey, then head of the FBI, declared that she's guilty, but that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue her.

No. No he did not. He said her staff where careless.

He did, indeed, say that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Here is the CNBC story that quotes him.

The case is unprosecutable because there isn't evidence of a crime.

From the same story:

Comey began his address by explaining what investigators found. He said that the probe showed that 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to include classified information at the time they were received. Within those emails, eight chains contained information that was "top secret" at the time they were sent, 36 had "secret" information and eight more had "confidential" information, the FBI director said.

All of that is evidence of a crime. He is further quoted as saying, in the SAME SENTENCE that contains the "no reasonable prosecutor" phrase:

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

There is evidence, but no prosecutor would bring a case. Further, he said:

He characterized the investigation findings as showing that Clinton and her team were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.

So no, he didn't say that just Clinton's staff "where" careless. Clinton too.

But but but ... no clear evidence of intent? Sadly the laws being broken don't have an intent clause, they are broken when the act takes place, intent or not.

Despite the bleatings of the conspiracy theory set, "Grandma doesn't understand email security" isn't a crime,

But "Grandma doesn't understand what 'Top Secret' means and the necessity of safeguarding such material" IS a crime. Grandma shouldn't have had to understand email security, but since she made the attempt and failed, and had classified material transported using that email system in violation of federal law, there is a crime. A crime that Grandma had been briefed on before she was given a security clearance, by the way. Ignorance is not only not an excuse, it doesn't apply here.

join the fact based community.

A good suggestion. I suppose you would classify CNBC with Brietbart, but you can find the full statement here on the FBI's website. Are CNN and The New York Times also Brietbart sycophants?

I'm pretty sure it's safe to completely ignore every other item on your passive-aggressive list.

You call that reason? You call yourself educated?

Of the 1,146 and 1,092 victims of police violence in 2015 and 2016, respectively, the authors found 52 percent were white, 26 percent were black, and 17 percent were Hispanic.

Source.

Is that left leaning enough for you? White people are more likely to be shot. A black person is more likely to be shot, but they are also more likely to commit crime being 13% of the population and commit over half the murders, rapes, assaults, burglaries, robberies, and domestic violence cases. Its all there. Pick a year, any year.

Now go ahead and fail to refute the rest of the list, or are you going to spew insults and hatred like you usually do?

Your problem isn't political bias, it's that you think you are educated, but don't even know what "likely" means.

I'm pretty sure it's safe to completely ignore every other item on your passive-aggressive list.

You call that reason? You call yourself educated?

Of the 1,146 and 1,092 victims of police violence in 2015 and 2016, respectively, the authors found 52 percent were white, 26 percent were black, and 17 percent were Hispanic.

Source.

Is that left leaning enough for you? White people are more likely to be shot. A black person is more likely to be shot, but they are also more likely to commit crime being 13% of the population and commit over half the murders, rapes, assaults, burglaries, robberies, and domestic violence cases. Its all there. Pick a year, any year.

Now go ahead and fail to refute the rest of the list, or are you going to spew insults and hatred like you usually do?

FYI - that FBI notice is not a requirement in any way; it is Hollywood trying to scare people, and that's all. The FBI created an "anti-piracy" logo with some boilerplate text and licensed it for use.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigat...

U.S. health care is pretty good all things considered, but a big part of the problem is that the U.S. is just terribly unhealthy. One-third of the country is obese (we consume more sugar per capita than anyone else, and we're almost 25% higher than the next country) and we're near the top of the lists for almost all types of hard drug use.

The other problem is that our healthcare system is some terrible amalgamation that's the worst of a free market and worst of a national system cobbled together. When people get unhealthy, they don't want to get checkups early because they don't know what it will cost them. We don't have the free clinic visits of some countries that can nip a lot of expensive problems in the bud if dealt with early, but you can't possibly get a hospital or clinic to give you a price for any of their services before you buy. In some cases they don't even have that information.

There's a public healthcare system in Medicare and Medicaid but it has its own problems and is too frequently abused by medical providers who make false charges. The private healthcare system isn't terribly great either since you can't go across state lines to buy insurance, so in some cases you're stuck with too few providers for reasonable competition to take place.

U.S. health care is pretty good all things considered, but a big part of the problem is that the U.S. is just terribly unhealthy. One-third of the country is obese (we consume more sugar per capita than anyone else, and we're almost 25% higher than the next country) and we're near the top of the lists for almost all types of hard drug use.

The other problem is that our healthcare system is some terrible amalgamation that's the worst of a free market and worst of a national system cobbled together. When people get unhealthy, they don't want to get checkups early because they don't know what it will cost them. We don't have the free clinic visits of some countries that can nip a lot of expensive problems in the bud if dealt with early, but you can't possibly get a hospital or clinic to give you a price for any of their services before you buy. In some cases they don't even have that information.

There's a public healthcare system in Medicare and Medicaid but it has its own problems and is too frequently abused by medical providers who make false charges. The private healthcare system isn't terribly great either since you can't go across state lines to buy insurance, so in some cases you're stuck with too few providers for reasonable competition to take place.

I think you missed the reference due to Ill Communication.

Title 3 (III)? Yes, I think you're right
We just had a story about it yesterday.

Crime statistics validate GP's claim - and invalidate yours.

You previously said: "The DNC hired Cloudstrike, and thus the #3 guy in the FBI to directly investigate this interference" -- when you should have said CrowdStrike.

Now you finally name who you have in mind, something not listed in your prior source (Snopes), yet the new bio you now point to says he's a "a retired executive assistant director of the FBI" (emphasis added). His name does not appear on the report, so you haven't even bothered to prove that much.

And even if he did, it wouldn't matter. That STILL doesn't answer for the lack of a real investigation by the US government (not 3rd parties or whoever else) into the actual technical details of this. You do not, because you cannot, refute any of the other points made, for which I actually gave sources. Your own sources don't even say what you claim they did. If they wanted a real investigation, they wouldn't be sending 3rd party contractors and retired people, now, would they? You do realize that hearsay is not admissible in court, right? The FBI agents have to have direct, personal knowledge of the investigation. Not "I heard it was okay from some guy who I decline to identify" type statements.

It's telling that they also bungled the Clinton email server investigation. Here's an FBI document describing how they failed to maintain the chain of custody on one of them, meaning it would be hard to use as evidence. Funny how sloppy they were on such an important national security investigation, and how they could forget stuff for months. Here, I'll transcribe the relevant part because I doubt you'll read the PDF:

As documented in ther referenced serial, on August 12, 2015 the FBI obtained a Dell Poweredge 2900, Gray Color, S/N G842PC1 from the custody of Platte River Networks and entered it into evidence as item 1B3 of the captioned investigation. The item was directly transported to the FBI Operational Technology Division (OTD) the same day. At 12:02 PM on October 20, 2015 SA [REDACTED] picked up 1B3 from OTD where he discovered the original chain of custody was missing. SA [REDACTED] transported 1B3 to the Washington Field Office and placed it into secure storage. This communication documents the loss of the original chain of custody and the creation of a new chain of custody beginning with SA [REDACTED] on October 20, 2015.

It's funny how little they care about these "important" investigations and how quickly the media changes tunes. We went from the media saying "it's not rigged, you're just losing" to "Russia rigged the election" in a heartbeat and now you guys try to get us to forget about that.

Hmm, downvoted without rebuttal, maybe it was my tone or maybe it's because the Southern Poverty Law Center is moderating /. just like it's doing at Facebook. You know, the people that call everything under the sun "racist", even if you just referred to "exceedingly violent" gang members as animals during a roundtable and in response to comments about MS-13 (full transcript). At least the AP retracted their statement, despite their laughable excuse.

The real question here is : Who gives a fuck?

That shit happened 17 years ago. Move on already.

Ah, millennial gnat-hair attention spans. The FBI spent 45 years trying to track down D.B. Cooper. It took 18 years to find the Unibomber and 37 years to track down the last of the Baptist Street Church bombers.

Just think how much time and money they could have saved had you been there to explain to them nobody "gives a fuck" anymore (including, of course, the victims and their families), and so they just needed to "move on already."

It's probably not that simple. Some people who don't care are going to use proxies to get around the block. Also, you don't need to be a member of a website in order for them to be able to build a profile of you and your information. You probably have friends and acquaintances who are members that will gladly supply some information about you in fairly innocuous manners such as tagging you in photos or indicating a shared work history.

Even if you follow GDPR and are compliant, all it takes is one data breach for that information to be available to whomever wants to hoover it up. Banks have all manners of security regulations and take various other precautions themselves, but about 4,000 are still robbed every year in the U.S.

As long as the data is valuable, someone will try to find a way to obtain it. I'm sure that in 5 years we'll be complaining about the various legal loopholes in these laws that have rendered them toothless for some reason.

First, I don't know what "total investigated" crimes mean, but according to the 2015 FBI crime stat, "Black or African American" represented 26.5% of total arrests. This includes women as well. Granted, that may be twice their representation in the population but it's nowhere near "a vast majority" of crimes. However, at least some of this disparity can be explained away comparing crime rates within socio-economic classes: If a socio-economic class that is heavily African-American also has a high crime rate and within that socio-economic class African-Americans commit crimes at the same rate as non-African-Americans, then your logic falls apart completely.

Looking just at the individual crimes you listed:
robberies - 53.5%, a slim majority
rapes - 28.2%
assaults - data not in chart, but "other assaults" are 30.8%
aggravated assaults - 32.1%
murders - 51% - a slim majority
drug crimes - not listed in chart, as just about any crime might be drug-related. Drug abuse violations - 27.0%, Driving under the influence (including alcohol) - 13.2% (right in line with the population)

Totalling just the measurable numbers above and leaving out drug crimes:

robberies - 39,052 of 73,023
rapes - 4,907 of 17,370
assaults - data not in chart, but "other assaults" are 254,600 of 826,920
aggravated assaults - 92,237 of 287,566
murders - includes non-negligent manslaughter 4,347 of 8,508
Total of these groups: 395143 of 1213387, or 32.5%, only slightly higher than the "other assaults" percentage, which is to be expected as that dominates this group.

Yes, 32.5% is much greater than the their overall arrest rate, and it's over 2 1/2 times their percentage of the population, which was at least 17.6% in 2015 (some Hispanics and pepole of two or more races may be African-American as well). However, much of the difference in crime rate in the United States is better attributed to socio-economic factors than anything else. To the extent that anything can be attributed to race, I strongly suspect that much of it is the legacy of "Jim Crow" and the racism of the past. I also suspect that some of it is a result of present-day racism, which, while not as prevalant as 50 years ago, still exists and still generates "defensive responses" - which in some cases may be criminal - in its victims.

The bottom line:

While your statement "those who care for their safety and the safety of their families have two choices" might actually be true if we lived in a community which matched your mistaken statistics, we don't live in such a country.

If you are going to appeal to racism on a technical forum, at least give your readers the courtesy of using statistics that are at least close to accurate. At least you did get the "7% of the population are Black males" right if you don't count Hispanics and those of more than one race, and assuming you meant the United States and not the entire world. Thank you for that much.

Oh, by the way, White people make up 82.6% of people arrested for driving under the influence, but they are 61% of the population (possibly up to 78% if all Hispanics and mult-racial people were also White).

2015 crime figures are from
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

2015 population figures are from https://www.statista.com/stati...

I was unable to find a race/ethnic breakdown of licensed drivers or driving patterns of miles driven. It is possible that the high rate of White DUI arrests correspond to Whites having a higher-than-expected number of license drivers or miles driven that their percent of the population would suggest.

First, I don't know what "total investigated" crimes mean, but according to the 2015 FBI crime stat, "Black or African American" represented 26.5% of total arrests. This includes women as well. Granted, that may be twice their representation in the population but it's nowhere near "a vast majority" of crimes. However, at least some of this disparity can be explained away comparing crime rates within socio-economic classes: If a socio-economic class that is heavily African-American also has a high crime rate and within that socio-economic class African-Americans commit crimes at the same rate as non-African-Americans, then your logic falls apart completely.

Looking just at the individual crimes you listed:
robberies - 53.5%, a slim majority
rapes - 28.2%
assaults - data not in chart, but "other assaults" are 30.8%
aggravated assaults - 32.1%
murders - 51% - a slim majority
drug crimes - not listed in chart, as just about any crime might be drug-related. Drug abuse violations - 27.0%, Driving under the influence (including alcohol) - 13.2% (right in line with the population)

Totalling just the measurable numbers above and leaving out drug crimes:

robberies - 39,052 of 73,023
rapes - 4,907 of 17,370
assaults - data not in chart, but "other assaults" are 254,600 of 826,920
aggravated assaults - 92,237 of 287,566
murders - includes non-negligent manslaughter 4,347 of 8,508
Total of these groups: 395143 of 1213387, or 32.5%, only slightly higher than the "other assaults" percentage, which is to be expected as that dominates this group.

Yes, 32.5% is much greater than the their overall arrest rate, and it's over 2 1/2 times their percentage of the population, which was at least 17.6% in 2015 (some Hispanics and pepole of two or more races may be African-American as well). However, much of the difference in crime rate in the United States is better attributed to socio-economic factors than anything else. To the extent that anything can be attributed to race, I strongly suspect that much of it is the legacy of "Jim Crow" and the racism of the past. I also suspect that some of it is a result of present-day racism, which, while not as prevalant as 50 years ago, still exists and still generates "defensive responses" - which in some cases may be criminal - in its victims.

The bottom line:

While your statement "those who care for their safety and the safety of their families have two choices" might actually be true if we lived in a community which matched your mistaken statistics, we don't live in such a country.

If you are going to appeal to racism on a technical forum, at least give your readers the courtesy of using statistics that are at least close to accurate. At least you did get the "7% of the population are Black males" right if you don't count Hispanics and those of more than one race, and assuming you meant the United States and not the entire world. Thank you for that much.

Oh, by the way, White people make up 82.6% of people arrested for driving under the influence, but they are 61% of the population (possibly up to 78% if all Hispanics and mult-racial people were also White).

2015 crime figures are from
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

2015 population figures are from https://www.statista.com/stati...

I was unable to find a race/ethnic breakdown of licensed drivers or driving patterns of miles driven. It is possible that the high rate of White DUI arrests correspond to Whites having a higher-than-expected number of license drivers or miles driven that their percent of the population would suggest.

I think that you are confused when you say, " this is direct criminal forfeiture where the assets will have to be returned if the fed's get a conviction."

lol, they get the assets returned when convicted, hilarious

Here is how Civil Forfeiture is used: Civil judicial forfeiture is a judicial process that does not require a criminal conviction and is a legal tool that allows law enforcement to seize property that is involved in a crime.

And now we are all smarter :)

[X] is a total that includes totals from [a,b,c and d]. You've summed [a], [b] and [c] and consider the lack of [d] or being able to show that [a,b,c and d] are the only elements is a problem with the source and that you can use the numbers the way you have? I repeat my claim. Your math is bad.

Okay, fine, subtract [d] for yourself and see how little the result changes. That link was in the post you're complaining about, the numbers are right there for you.

Hell, don't do it yourself (unless you really care to check my work, in which case please do), the new total is 1,152,455. That doesn't affect the murder rate percentage at all, as that whole number is still part of the new total, and you can see that the total has reduced by less than 100,000. The percentage of, well call them "qualified", violent crimes involving guns, then, is just a hair over 28%, well within the margin of error for most studies and, given that the statistics available only pertain to crimes reported, which will be a subset of crimes committed the margin of error here should be expected to be a bit higher; the statistical difference between 1,248,185 and 1,152,455 (or 26% and 28%) in this scenario is meaningless. The percentage of gun deaths (murders) relative to "qualified" violent crimes, since I know that's the number you probably really wanted, jumps way up, from 0.9% to 1%. I hope you could feel the sarcasm dripping from my words there. The ratio of homicides to total gun-related violent crime (3%) does not change because all of those are still in the new total.

What a big difference that made, right? If you still think my math is wrong, please correct it for the sake of not spreading misinformation. This is an important subject and it deserves to be discussed openly and honestly. I provided my sources for a reason.

No. You could look at places where guns have been removed or restricted and looking at the stats for violent crime.

You mean like Oakland? I keep mentioning Oakland and nobody wants to respond.

In Australia, for eg, there was a brief spike immediately following the buy-back/ban and then a steady decline.

I did look at Australia. They had many fewer guns than we do and an entirely different social structure. The spike they had there should worry you for the US; ours would be much larger and, given our heritage with guns, would likely not decline. Even if it would eventually decline, it wouldn't really get a chance to as the regulations would be pulled so quickly your head would spin, we'd all get our guns back, and the subject of regulation would never be revisited; that initial spike would be all that was needed to shut up the "get rid of guns for the children" crowd and bolster the argument of the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" crowd.

In short, what worked in Australia worked only due to the relatively small number of guns they had in the first place and the relative obscurity of gun culture in the country to begin with. There wasn't a whole lot of debate before the regulations were enacted and the regulations weren't restricting or removing a constitutional right.

Your inability to provide proof of your assertion doesn't make your assertion any more true. If you know what I'm saying.

Again, there is only one way to prove it and it's not the kind of thing I actually want to be right about if that proof comes.

You claimed an increase in gun crime will occur when/if guns are criminalised. It may seem simple to you; it may seem obvious. It's not. It's an assertion you haven't backed up with anything like evidence. For eg, show somewhere where guns were made illegal and where the use of guns by criminals increased.

Note that I never said the

I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?

What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?

Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?

That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.

One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?

After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.

There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.

When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone

I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?

What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?

Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?

That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.

One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?

After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.

There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.

When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone

I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?

What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?

Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?

That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.

One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?

After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.

There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.

When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone

I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?

What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?

Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?

That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.

One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?

After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.

There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.

When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone

I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?

What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?

Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?

That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.

One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?

After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.

There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.

When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone

I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?

What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?

Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?

That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.

One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?

After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.

There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.

When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone

We still have people robbing banks, with guns, knives, bombs, etc.

And not one with fully automatic guns. So yes, it did work, by your own admission in both of your previous posts. No more fully automatic guns, no more fully automatic gun crimes. Simple, and very directly correlated.

Of course, the Chicago Beer Wars only really ended when Prohibition was repealed. The largest part of current gun crime is linked to New Prohibition. Food for thought.

You realize there are still fully auto guns in private hands today, so what you're saying is clearly wrong. Fully auto guns in crimes was never very common. So it didn't work. You won't get this point because you can't show it's true. It could be amusing to see you try though. It's a fools errand, let's see if you're a fool or not.

It's trivial to show you that the more gun control we have the worse the problem with guns is.

It most certainly is not trivial, especially since you proceeded to confuse yourself in the same paragraph.

I'm not confused, you are. It's easy when your logic is flawed. I've been following gun control since the 1970s. Plenty of studies. The ones that show gun control works in every case I've researched, it was because they used bullshit and got caught. They make up numbers, statistics and you have to prove they're wrong. Been there, done that, I have a drawer full of t-shirts. So to me, yes it's trivial.

Australia has had mass shootings and killings since their ban, just look it up. England is very easy to debunk with their gun control and how crime has risen so don't even go there.

Violent crime of all kinds, involving guns or not, has fallen dramatically since the late 80s, everywhere in the Western world, with only a very small uptick in the past 2 years. That includes time periods where gun bans were enacted. So your assertion that more gun control causes worse gun problems is obvious nonsense on the face of it. In England specifically, there have been fewer fatalities since their gun ban was enacted. Likewise for Japan. Nutjobs with knives do still exist, but they do far less damage.

As I said, Australia won't help you because it was already falling well before that law was passed. In fact if the law hadn't been passed it's likely we would be right where we are today.
Nonsense you say? Here is another piece of very sound advice given by me on slashdot, read this - https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp... . Once you've read it, you can stop sounding like a fool. I know those stubborn facts again.

The left historically loves gun control. Hitler was for it...

And you lose. Godwin's Law.

You realize that you automatically lose if you invoke Godwin's and it is something the Nazis really did, right? Do you even know what Godwin's law is about? It's ok to mention Nazis, Hitler if it's something they really did. They really did champion gun control, implement it and it's documented. It's ok when that's the point you're making and it is. Gun confiscation, actually seizure in most cases leading towards a totalitarian government and you can't do anything about it because nobody is armed. They weren't armed. That's what you get. Godwin himself said it's ok to compare facists (the leftists that are to the right of the communists and still well to the left - alt right) to the alt right because that's what they are.

...and in America it's always historically been racist.

A leftist dog whistle argument? Really?

Wow, really wow... you're accusing me of being a leftist? I didn't expect that. Well if that is what you meant, that's a first for this Century

We still have people robbing banks, with guns, knives, bombs, etc.

And not one with fully automatic guns. So yes, it did work, by your own admission in both of your previous posts. No more fully automatic guns, no more fully automatic gun crimes. Simple, and very directly correlated.

Of course, the Chicago Beer Wars only really ended when Prohibition was repealed. The largest part of current gun crime is linked to New Prohibition. Food for thought.

It's trivial to show you that the more gun control we have the worse the problem with guns is.

It most certainly is not trivial, especially since you proceeded to confuse yourself in the same paragraph.

Australia has had mass shootings and killings since their ban, just look it up. England is very easy to debunk with their gun control and how crime has risen so don't even go there.

Violent crime of all kinds, involving guns or not, has fallen dramatically since the late 80s, everywhere in the Western world, with only a very small uptick in the past 2 years. That includes time periods where gun bans were enacted. So your assertion that more gun control causes worse gun problems is obvious nonsense on the face of it. In England specifically, there have been fewer fatalities since their gun ban was enacted. Likewise for Japan. Nutjobs with knives do still exist, but they do far less damage.

The left historically loves gun control. Hitler was for it...

And you lose. Godwin's Law.

...and in America it's always historically been racist.

A leftist dog whistle argument? Really?

A well armed public keeps government in check.

Riiiiight. In check you say. That's what it is. Sure. I can tell. If it is, not one gun was used to keep it in check. When was the last time there was a successful armed revolution that overthrew a repressive regime in the Western world? Name one. I'll wait.

They seem to want a 2nd civil war. The Democrats won't win this time either.

As usual, completely ignoring that the political stances of the two parties have swapped essentially end for end since the Civil War. Historical revisionism wins you no arguments.

I think we need to do a lot more cleaning after the fact, however.

Ok Internet Tough Guy. You know what I saw on the highway last week? A pickup truck with a permanently disabled license plate surrounded by a US Marine Corp plate holder, with a Service Disabled Veteran bumper sticker. And right next to it, a RESIST sticker. People who own and know how to use guns are not all gun nuts.

Today, man I have a whole bunch of guns. I have ammo for guns I don't even own.

Yeah, I know, you have a fetish. It was obvious from your argumentation, and only borne out by that statement.

I find it amusing that you and all your ilk and your favoritist lobbying organization in the whole wide world goes on and on condemning the "Assault Weapon" ban while saying in the same breath that it only banned the "scary" parts of guns. Which it did. And I understand why you hate it so much, and "the left" that passed it. Even though that ban did nothing whatsoever to affect the ability of anyone to own guns that would be perfectly effective for your precious armed revolution that will never happen, YOU hate it because it bans the sexy parts of guns. You have a fetish. You want your fetish objects to look menacing, even when those features have negligible effects on their utility.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't care about your sexual obsessions, but you've decided to obsess over an object that is also a deadly weapon. That's fine. You do you. But I want all your fetish objects treated just like the fully automatic

Those that did sneak through the borders to get into the USA have broken the law by the very fact of sneaking past the border. Once here they seem to have little respect for other laws. They will drive without a license, insurance, or registering their vehicle. They will work under falsified papers. They will drive while drunk. They will steal, rape, and murder.

Right. In record numbers. Fox News should be a controlled substance.

...they have broken the law by the act of entering the nation without permission, and have a high probability of further breaking the law.

No they don't. They have a much lower probability of breaking any further laws that aren't labor laws. Breaking laws attracts the attention of law enforcement. Illegal immigrants go out of their way to avoid the attention of law enforcement. Haven't you seen... basically any procedural cop show in the past 20 years? Every single one of them has multiple episodes of local LEOs having to disclaim their interest in the immigration status of people they're interviewing, or threatening to call Immigration in order to extract information. Illegal immigrants are at pains to avoid having any such conversations.

Your sourceless assertions are ridiculous on the face of it, and contradicted by FBI statistics.

you are assuming its only assault-style weapons capable of doing this. How old are you? do you remember the 80s? Remember the phrase 'going postal'? no assault style weapon there. Do you remember Columbine? Shotguns and 9mm 'carbines'. If you're going to call something an assault-style weapon shouldnt you at least require it to shoot an assault-rifle cartridge? There is nothing different about that hitek 9mm he had an a pistol other than a longer barrel. It was still just a 10round magazine.

  you do realize that _all_ rifle related homicides amount to 3.3% of all firearm murders? and only 2% of all murders according to the FBI statistics? Whereas pistol related murders comprise 69% of all firearm related murders and 47% of all murders. Surely banning a small sub-set of rifles will make a difference? I mean surely we might have saved the 350 people murdered from rifles, who cares about the 7000 people murdered by pistols.

this is a table of murders, not suicides
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

if your goal is really public safety, and not merely ensuring the people could never stand up against the police if they ever tried to overstep their authority, then wuoldnt your first goal be trying to do something about the 7000 murders before you adress the 350?

To be fair, there was a great deal of tax money spent on the investigation. The case was actively investigated for 45 years. It was suspended in 2016 but remains open.: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us...

Does the FBI agents and administrators swear a oath to protect the Constitution and laws of the US or to obey the President? Lets check
https://www2.fbi.gov/publicati...

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Which is different than the oath that the military swears
https://history.army.mil/html/...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The FBI was made to be politically independent (https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/fbi_hist.htm)

Of course you disagree, disagreeing with basic facts about reality is all the rage these days; as is screaming "racist!" at everyone who disagrees with you (Asians commit less crimes than whites; does saying that fact make me a white Asian-supremecist?). Serious violent crimes are not ignored because the perpetrator is white, so what's the cause of the large disparity there? (In fact, case clearance rate is *higher* with white people, making them less likely to get away with it). Same goes for crime with a complaining victim (since the vast majority of crime is between members of the same race, do you believe there's an epidemic of crimes called in by white victims being ignored because the criminal is white?). Or is the FBI lying about their statistics too?
If you say race doesn't predict recidivism independently despite a bunch of studies saying it does, how's about citing one that comes to the opposite conclusion? You're also laser-focused on petty infractions like pedestrian citations, but when looking at recidivism for serious violent crimes, there's value in the statistics about violent crimes. All statistics about crime rates aren't magically negated because some offenses are disproportionately enforced against minorities. And beyond that, even if we wanted to just look at petty offenses where the is racially disparate enforcement... *there's racially disparate enforcement*, so a black person *is* more likely to be rearrested on that petty offense.

Finally, you claim they are not valid based on no evidence. And ultimately, you're the kind of person that perpetuates racial inequality in this country. You want to pretend the problem either doesn't exist or is exclusively the fault of white people; and I'm saying we've gotta fix this and that starts with acknowledging the problem (i.e. there is a disparity in crime rate and it's predominantly because of poverty and limited education opportunities, but culture is also a part of it and can't be ignored).
We can build a better world, but not by sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling 'racist!' at anyone who brings up a fact that offends them.