Slashdot Mirror

18% of prisons isn't "a lot". They're also governed by the same rules about stuff like this as non-privatized prisons. The politicians and their selected bureaucrats set rules like this, not the local prison officials.

Also, there's no difference in recidivism between public and private prisons.

Looks to me that cities and the immediate suburbs are much more dangerous than rural America. Violent crimes and property crimes are twice (or more) likely per capita in cities and their immediate suburbs as compared to rural America.

Claims with no citations? You're either an idiot or an outright troll/liar.

A small sampling of the citations linked in the post in question:
http://www.city-journal.org/20...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
http://www.umass.edu/legal/Ben...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publ...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinf...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abst...
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/...
http://www.sentencingproject.o...
http://online.wsj.com/articles...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live...
That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short.

Claims with no citations? You're either an idiot or an outright troll/liar.

A small sampling of the citations linked in the post in question:
http://www.city-journal.org/20...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
http://www.umass.edu/legal/Ben...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publ...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinf...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abst...
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/...
http://www.sentencingproject.o...
http://online.wsj.com/articles...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live...
That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short.

Claims with no citations? You're either an idiot or an outright troll/liar.

A small sampling of the citations linked in the post in question:
http://www.city-journal.org/20...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
http://www.umass.edu/legal/Ben...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publ...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinf...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abst...
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/...
http://www.sentencingproject.o...
http://online.wsj.com/articles...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live...
That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short.

Claims with no citations? You're either an idiot or an outright troll/liar.

A small sampling of the citations linked in the post in question:
http://www.city-journal.org/20...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
http://www.umass.edu/legal/Ben...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publ...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinf...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abst...
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/...
http://www.sentencingproject.o...
http://online.wsj.com/articles...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live...
That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short.

Claims with no citations? You're either an idiot or an outright troll/liar.

A small sampling of the citations linked in the post in question:
http://www.city-journal.org/20...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
http://www.umass.edu/legal/Ben...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publ...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinf...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abst...
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/...
http://www.sentencingproject.o...
http://online.wsj.com/articles...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live...
That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short.

This is simple human survival instinct, not cowardice. Say you're are at a large dinner table and five people around you take a drink of the water everyone has been served and those five people almost immediately begin vomiting, do you drink the water? Not just no but hell no.

If you are a man and constantly see men of all stripes in the news being harshly penalized for mere public accusations of sexual misconduct often decades after the alleged misconduct took place, with little to no evidence of the alleged crimes happening (other people saying "yeah, that happened" is not evidence) and no criminal case ever being brought, are you going to assume that "I don't harass or abuse anyone so I'm okay!" is good enough? Not just no but hell no. Nearly half of all rape charges are thrown out or rejected for prosecution. Women can and do lie, and while it's not all of them, there are enough that if you run into enough of them you'll surely run into one of the unscrupulous ones.

What this "national conversation on sexual harassment" that feminists think is so great has actually done is force men in all walks of life to take actions for survival, and that means keeping women distant enough that an accusation from an unscrupulous woman will hopefully fall flat or won't be leveled in the first place because you simply didn't hire any female subordinates.

It's not a great way to live but it's the path we as a society have chosen. There is a reason that we required a certain level of proof before believing accusations of any stripe in the past and by throwing that out and letting the accusation equal automatic judgment as guilty, we're setting up a situation where those who can level accusations are a huge risk that simply is not worth taking. Be man all you want but the feminists got what they wanted here...and everything that comes with it. Enjoy your new world order.

Look how well that worked out for drugs.

After prohibition of alcohol ended it took decades for per capita consumption of alcohol to reach previous levels. Public health improved in several respects.

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

Locking people up for small amounts of marijuana sure destroyed demand for marijuana oh wait...

"Oh wait" indeed .....

Who’s Really in Prison for Marijuana?

The idea that our nation’s prisons are overflowing with otherwise lawabiding people convicted for nothing more than simple possession of marijuana is treated by many as conventional wisdom.

But this, in fact, is a myth—an illusion conjured and aggressively perpetuated by drug advocacy groups seeking to relax or abolish America’s marijuana laws. In reality, the vast majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana have been found guilty of much more than simple possession. Some were convicted for drug trafficking, some for marijuana possession along with one or more other offenses. And many of those serving time for marijuana pled down to possession in order to avoid prosecution on much more serious charges.

In 1997, the year for which the most recent data are available, just 1.6 percent of the state inmate population were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and less than one percent of all state prisoners (0.7 percent) were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). An even smaller fraction of state prisoners in 1997 who were convicted just for marijuana possession were first time offenders (0.3 percent).

The numbers on the federal level tell a similar story. Out of all drug defendants sentenced in federal court for marijuana crimes in 2001, the overwhelming majority were convicted for trafficking, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Only 2.3 percent—186 people—received sentences for simple possession, and of the 174 for whom sentencing information is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars.

Oh, the other thing with point 3 is community policing.

Wow, that sounds almost unbelievable. I would have thought that the result would have been just the opposite. Oh wait, it was. As multiple studies have shown.

You often hear the 1 in 3 stat mentioned,

It was actually 1 in 5. At least get it right before criticising it.

False claims are a problem, but so is actual sexual assault. We have multiple sources of evidence to show that assault levels are rather high (for men too, greater than 1 in 20) but not much evidence that false accusations are rampant. Getting hysterical about it (crazy to go to college, really?) isn't going to help anyone.

Yeah, it might blow your mind, but you can't trust the numbers on there.

one.

two

three

Tell you what, you write your Congressman, and you tell him you want a real comprehensive study, then you'll have some credibility to your intent to get real numbers on the subject.

No wait, you'll just keep posting those baseless numbers because they make you feel good. They give you the emotional feeling of satisfaction, so you embrace them because they say what you want to hear.

Reality is racist: Blacks have nearly 3 times higher rate of single-parenthood in the US, than other races. And that — being raised without a father — is one giant reason for much higher likelihood of criminality later in life.

Whatever the reasons for that, it is not Google's fault.

in the US:

http://www.predpol.com/

http://www.ibm.com/software/an...

http://www.motorolasolutions.c...

http://computerstories.net/mic...

PDF from RAND:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...

and so on and so on.

This is all distraction, as operating system configuration and patching is not a "backdoor'.

The best response to the FBI's request I've read thus far comes from the noted IOS forensics security guru, Jonathan Zdziarski where he wrote the following

An instrument is the term used in the courts to describe anything from a breathalyzer device to a forensics tool, and in order to get judicial notice of a new instrument, it must be established that it is validated, peer reviewed, and accepted in the scientific community. It is also held to strict requirements of reproducibility and predictability, requiring third parties (such as defense experts) to have access to it. I've often heard Cellebrite referred to, for example, as the Cellebrite instrument in courts. Instruments are treated very differently from a simple lab service, like dumping a phone. I've done both of these for law enforcement in the past: provided services, and developed a forensics tool. Providing a simple dump of a disk image only involves my giving testimony of my technique. My forensics tools, however, required a much thorough process that took significant resources, and they would for Apple too.

The tool must be designed and developed under much more stringent practices that involve reproducible, predictable results, extensive error checking, documentation, adequate logging of errors, and so on. The tool must be forensically sound and not change anything on the target, or document every change that it makes / is made in the process. Full documentation must be written that explains the methods and techniques used to disable Apple's own security features. The tool cannot simply be some throw-together to break a PIN; it must be designed in a manner in which its function can be explained, and its methodology could be reproduced by independent third parties. Since FBI is supposedly the ones to provide the PIN codes to try, Apple must also design and develop an interface / harness to communicate PINs into the tool, which means added engineering for input validation, protocol design, more logging, error handling, and so on. FBI has asked to do this wirelessly (possibly remotely), which also means transit encryption, validation, certificate revocation, and so on.

Once the tool itself is designed, it must be tested internally on a number of devices with exactly matching versions of hardware and operating system, and peer reviewed internally to establish a pool of peer-review experts that can vouch for the technology. In my case, it was a bunch of scientists from various government agencies doing the peer-review for me. The test devices will be imaged before and after, and their disk images compared to ensure that no bits were changed; changes that do occur from the operating system unlocking, logging, etc., will need to be documented so they can be explained to the courts. Bugs must be addressed. The user interface must be simplified and robust in its error handling so that it can be used by third parties.

Once the tool is ready, it must be tested and validated by a third party. In this case, it would be NIST/NIJ (which is where my own tools were validated). NIST has a mobile forensics testing and validation process by which Apple would need to provide a copy of the tool (which would have to work on all of their test devices) for NIST to verify. NIST checks to ensure that all of the data on the test devices is recovered. Any time the software is updated, it should go back through the validation process. Once NIST tests and validates the device, it would be clear for the FBI to use on the device. Here is an example of what my tools validation from NIJ looks like: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...

During trial, the court will want to see what kind of scientific peer review the tool has had; if it is not validated by NIST or some other third party, or has no acceptance in the scientific community,

"I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. "

Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.

Also check the studies by Kleck out of FSU.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...

The concept that a person of some given behavior is more likely to be locked up if he/she is of some ethnic origin other than white European, say, a black person, in America is incorrect.

That's just incorrect. There is plenty of evidence, shown in study after study, that shows there is a disparity in sentencing between white people and various ethnic and racial groups.
http://www.sentencingproject.o...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... http://www.theguardian.com/law...
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live...
https://www.aclu.org/sites/def...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...
So maybe you want to start your reply again, armed with this new information?

Your position seems to be that unjust sentencing disparity caused by the race of the defendant is prevalent, that your numerous links contain statements that support that conclusion, and thus my position regarding preferential treatment is wrong. If, by posting all of those links, you mean to advance some idea beyond unjust racial sentencing disparity, you didn't say so.

But sentencing is only one element or the criminal process. Who is chosen to arrest is important as well, and that's what I just pointed out. The focus of law enforcement is the first element in the criminal justice process. I gave the example of leniency given to a peaceful crowd sitting on a porch selling crack. Sentencing, however unjust, has nothing to do with that.

It would be unrealistically unwieldy for me to rebutt all the contents of all those links. It wouldn't even make sense to read them. However, the studies I'm familiar with that express your conclusion (racial sentencing disparity in general) are flawed. Please pick one, or one concept from one, that you like, and I will address it.

The concept that a person of some given behavior is more likely to be locked up if he/she is of some ethnic origin other than white European, say, a black person, in America is incorrect.

That's just incorrect. There is plenty of evidence, shown in study after study, that shows there is a disparity in sentencing between white people and various ethnic and racial groups.

http://www.sentencingproject.o...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

http://www.theguardian.com/law...

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live...

https://www.aclu.org/sites/def...

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...

So maybe you want to start your reply again, armed with this new information?

It depends on how you define "risk".

If, to you, risk is a a measure of the severity of a cataclysmic failure, then nuclear power has some fairly bad potential.
If, on the other hand, you measure risk as the likelihood of a cataclysmic failure, then nuclear is pretty damn safe.

Most people measure risk (personally) in potential severity which is why everyone is so afraid of everything. Kids are frequently disallowed from walking or biking to school because there is (technically) an exceedingly low chance of a stranger kidnapping the kid. (~115 kids/year | https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...).

Fearful people don't understand probability. And that's understandable. Evolutionarily speaking, fearful people stay alive. They may not advance to procreate as much as those who are willing to take certain risks, but they still survive enough to pass on their ways to their offspring.

Contrary to all the hype on the news whenever it happens, the odds of your child being abducted by a non-family member are exceedingly slim. It happens about 58,000 times a year, which on a per child basis is 0.08% (72 million children in 1999 when the study took place). 99.9% of abductions end with the child being recovered or returned, 90% of them within 24 hours.

Only 115 of those cases were classified as a stereotypical kidnapping (child moved more than 50 miles, held at least one night, held for ransom or intent to permanently keep the child, or the child killed). 57% of kidnappings end with the child recovered, 40% end in the child's death, 3% with the child never found. So as a cause of death, your child is roughly 3x more likely to be killed in a firearms accident, 8x more likely to be killed in a fire, 18x more likely to be poisoned, 22x more likely to drown, and nearly 100x more likely to die in a car accident.

If you ever wanted an example of the stereotype of a government agency preying on people's fears about their safety to amass more power for itself, CPS is it.

What constitutes excessive force in your mind? Ignore the Grand Jury's decision for this question, because we have ample evidence demonstrating that the system does not always work toward justice. You can see how many charges law enforcement agents have had to face, even after they brutally beat a homeless person to death on the street. This is one of at least several similar events where no charges were filed.

It is that question that has many people bothered about this event.

Buried under the racism and claims of execution and murder is a valid concern, which is that law enforcement has undergone a fundamental change in the last few decades which does not benefit society. The slogan of "Protect and Serve the Public" today is invalid, officers are placed above all members of the public and the statement "Officer Safety" has become a mantra justifying any and all actions the officer takes.

The take away we should be discussing is the question I proposed initially. The psychological profiling of potential law enforcement officers is a concern, the militarization of police forces is a concern.

I'm not a pacifist. If an armed suspect is threatening the public, the police have the right to shoot to kill. It's when suspects are not armed that we need to draw a firm line on the amount of force required versus the amount of force used. Unloading a full clip into an unarmed suspect from a vehicle goes beyond necessary force, especially in this case where bullets kept flying after the suspect was 15feet from the vehicle (from the evidence released to the public).

Further reading can be found pretty much anywhere, from cases of officers shooting dogs in yards to tossing flash bangs into the wrong house during an unannounced raid to serve a warrant.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381446/barney-fife-meets-delta-force-charles-c-w-cooke
http://www.sagepub.com/gabbido...
http://www.copwatch.org/databa...

Look at Japan as well. Rape is barely even a blip.

It's clear that you haven't looked at Japan. It may well be one of the countries in which rape is most underreported.

The study the level of sexual assault of trainees in academic fieldwork environments... was 26% of women and 6% of men reported experiencing sexual assault. According to a study by the CDC, 51.9 percent of surveyed women and 66.4 percent of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an adult by any type of attacker. More than half (54 percent) of the female rape victims identified by the survey were younger than age 18 when they experienced their first attempted or completed rape. Violence against women is primarily intimate partner violence: 64.0 percent of the women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of the men who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were victimized by such a perpetrator. Study: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...

The number is utterly bogus:

http://aspiringeconomist.com/i...

And a woman's actual lifetime chance of being raped, is more like 8%:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1...

got a citation?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publ...

Done right - yes, the kids.

Education is not done at the moment in general in a rational manner.

The process is typically that a politician gets an idea. (which they may even believe).
They then either implement this in their area of influence, or if they are especially progressive, do a poorly setup trial, which they then ignore before rolling it out.

The problem is things that seem reasonable often produce the exact opposite result.

Take for example 'Scared Straight' programs - where troubled teens are taken on prison visits, to see what future awaits them and to help turn their life around. Seems obvious it'll work, so nobody checked.
Unfortunately, when they did:
'A study by Anthony Petrosino and researchers at the Campbell Collaboration analyzed results from nine Scared Straight programs and found that such programs generally increased crime up to 28 percent in the experimental group when compared to a no-treatment control group. ... found that youth who participate in Scared Straight and other similar deterrence programs have higher recidivism rates than youth in control groups.'

There is real debate as to the best way to teach kids to read.
Proper statistics measuring outcomes for each way answers this.

Should this data ever be available outside education, and should there be extreme penalties for using such data in such contexts as insurance- of course not, and yes!.
(I'd start at a million dollars per offence)

https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojj...

http://www.policeone.com/close...

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Topi...

I read that cops are more likely to be killed by their own guns than another's. But I can't seem to find the statistics right now. www.ncjrs.gov is not responding.

Just because you heard it does't make it true. And even if it were true (which it isn't), the majority of self inflicted gun shot wounds are due to accidental (or negligent) discharge, or suicide attempt, neither of which "smart gun" technology would have any effect on.

And this is a very good illustratration of one of the BIG problems with such registries: no matter how trivial the crime, people will assume (A) that you're guilty

If you've had your due process and been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption of innocence is over.

Guilty of what? Sexting with a fellow high school student? That first childhood romance? Public urination? The words "sex offender" bring up images of rape - forcible, drug-aided, whatever - and other serious sex crimes, but the "sex offender registry" is a lifetime tattoo that puts everyone from serial rapists to "huggy" 10-year-olds in the same basket.

And it also shows why a national registry is an outrageously BAD IDEA. A person who was an offender in one state would face a lifetime stigma, even in other states where the "offending" activity was perfectly legal.

And? If I went to Amsterdam to smoke pot it's legal, if I do it at home I'm a criminal and I'd get a "drug offense" on my record.

If you smoke pot in the US and you're white, you get a ticket. If you smoke pot in the US and you're black, you get 30-90 days in jail. If you mastermind a network that imports and distributes tons of marijuana over the course of a decade, you get 20 years. After you've paid your fine or done your time, you get released and can rejoin society.

If you kissed your high school sweetheart and her daddy got upset, then you are never allowed to live within 1000 feet of a school or (in many areas) a school bus stop. If you kissed your high school sweetheart, your presence will reduce property values for any neighborhood you move into. The marijuana equivalent would be to put everyone from the kingpin to the weekend toker to the kid taking her own adderall on a "drug addict registry." After all, recidivism among drug offenses is nearly 70%, where recidivism among sexual offenders is more than 5%. (actually, if you break the sex-offenders into "high risk" and "low risk," then you can find recidivism nearly 70% within the 1-in-5 minority of sex offender registrants, but that already admits that there are identifiably different kinds of sexual offenders)

The point is that the sexual offender registry, as implemented is bad policy and bad law. Repeated studies have show it has no effect on recidivism or re-arrest rates. If your point is "It's the law: whether it's good or bad, you need to accept it because public opinion is irrelevant," then your point is ridiculous. The Law is supposed to represent a codification of common values. The Law can change based on the public's experience of it, and the way we make that happen is by pointing out the flaws in existing laws.

That 2+ million defensive uses a year was pretty much blown away as being a poorly devised survey, one reported using their gun 52 times in a year. When they were checked back on, some said they hadn't been attacked at all, but still reported that they'd used a gun to defend themselves, etc.

Try this instead, starting on page 8 and on.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Maybe these studies are wrong? You say there are statistics, show they aren't fabrications: Where's your study? Who told you those stats in the first place?

That cuts both ways. Kanin himself apparently cautioned against the generalizability of his findings, and some googling indicates to me that his study has been widely disputed. To quote one researcher, "Kanin describes no effort to systemize his own ‘evaluation’ of the police reports—for example, by listing details or facts that he used to evaluate the criteria used by the police to draw their conclusions. Nor does Kanin describe any effort to compare his evaluation of those reports to that of a second, independent research—providing a ‘reliability’ analysis. This violates a cardinal rule of science, a rule designed to ensure that observations are not simply the reflection of the bias of the observer".

Or to quote a blogger under the moniker Ampersand, "In other words, Kanin’s study consists of Kanin uncritically reporting the claims of a single police force in a small, unidentified city, without those claims having been checked or verified in any way whatsoever."

So if we're going to throw stats around, here's a report with a 2.1% rate - https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=243182

This PDF collates some statistics and ends up with somewhere around 8% - http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf

Wikipedia itself has a long table of studies and the rates they report, even including a study on the studies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_rape_accusations - which has as one of its conclusions that it is 'impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" due to the fact that many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies'.

Where am I going with this? Damned if I know. The huge number of dead links to primary sources I hit was certainly annoying. But were I you, I think I'd cease using Kanin's study like it actually means anything beyond "how to provide ammunition for people who don't even know which end of the gun they're holding".

More guns = more suicides, whatever you think of the different methods the numbers seem to suggest guns make it easier/more tempting.

Romeo and Juliet, something like that? Those were successful all the way through. Does the society want them dead? Not really. But, darwinistically speaking, the society benefits from mentally stable people, not from head cases. Those *should* evolve out, in the grand scheme of things. Like taxes, if you support a certain behavior you get more of it. There are people who try to commit suicide repeatedly (and fail N-1 times out of that.) Then firemen are summoned, the police, and the doctors... what for? In the USA the Constitution guarantees your right for pursuit of happiness, but it does not define what form it may take. If you cannot live without your man|girl, don't. Will I be sad? Probably. But I cannot tell you to suffer for years, if not for the rest of your life, just because it is in my personal interests, either political or religious, to keep you alive. That would be awfully selfish of me. On that subject:

No, two people who didn't know eachother. They didn't have some illness, they weren't a drag on society, and I wouldn't call them particularly mentally unstable. They were just extremely depressed for a period. I'm sorry dude but you sound like a massive asshole. People who are so depressed they're willing to kill themselves and your solution is to give them a hand and act like you're some kind of altruist? Have you actually met someone who's attempted or committed suicide? You seem to be throwing out these cardboard stereotypes about suicidal people, criminals, old people, everyone. There's such insane variety around any kind of label you can imagine and you seem to be ignoring all of it.

I'm not sure where you live, but in most countries criminals cannot stop. There are the usual socioeconomic reasons for that. There is not enough jobs even for citizens who never jaywalked. What chance, in your opinion, a man with a burglary or a theft under his belt has? How many store managers will be happy to give him the keys to the money box? The only jobs that are left for them are menial jobs, like digging of ditches. Maybe one can become a licensed professional, like an electrician or a plumber, but that's not easy - there is a requirement for apprenticeship, and with that see above.

Can a criminal reform? Yes. Most of those success stories are from white collar crime, where for example an accountant made a "mistake" toward his own bank account. Just once in his whole life. He won't do that again. Kevin Mitnick is a good example. Some violent criminals embrace religion in prison and also become ex-criminals. The vast majority, however, is stuck in the vicious circle forever. They don't know how to live differently, and the society rejects them even if they try to end their wrong ways; they become career criminals.

That's a lovely four paragraph explanation explaining how criminals are criminals for life. Unfortunately it's simply not true, even for violent crime.

It doesn't matter how much you argue otherwise, crime is a symptom of youth and as they age people generally turn away from a life of crime. (I wouldn't be surprised if incarceration was negatively correlated with future offences but that's an unrelated debate).

For instance, I could say that Hitler was an artist, who had an accomplished military career, as well as a career in politics (which must mean he was popular, right?)

Well, he did win the popular vote, so I fail to see the problem here.

but looking through that Wikipedia article makes it fairly clear that his father was abusive, and he joined the military to get away from him. These two facts scream "predisposition to violence" to me, and I think most other rational thinking people.

And unfortunately, you'd be very wrong. There is no such thing as a "predisposition to violence". There are risk factors, but these are not predictive at an individual (micro) level, only at a macro level. Or put another way, if I run into a crowd and start shooting a gun into the air, I cannot predict how any particular individual will react in that situation... but I can predict to a reasonably high accuracy what the group will do.

Your comment, on the other hand, is your own statement of belief.

Statement of belief #1, by Dr. Michael Koenigs of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Neuroscience Training Program. His conclusion? I'm right, you're wrong.

The informally-named Connally Commission also concluded that the brain lesion likely played a role in his violent impulses. This report was produced under the direction of the office of the Governor of Texas, and was prepared by medical experts with the sole purpose of answering the question I outlined earlier.

I could go on, if you'd like. Wikipedia is not the only citation I can provide, just the easiest.

I'm afraid I have to point out that the burden of proof lies with you,

*punt* Your turn.

Let's say your numbers are correct and 40% of guns sold in the US don't involve a background check (though I'd be curious in seeing some citation for that number).

Citation: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

I realized this was a tall order when I asked you and because I knew you didn't have data to back up your assertion. The reason is nobody collects really good statistics

Don't twist my words. Go to the Wikipedia page on "gun control", it tells you that people have looked at tons of data and never been able to find a strong effect. Some studies have shown small statistically significant effects, but not consistently, and the effects were generally so small that they don't justify gun control.

Also see this study from Maryland https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242922 [ncjrs.gov]

And how do those statistics relate to the inference that gun control works? Or that guns are in the legal possession of perpetrators?

According to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt [usdoj.gov] based on survey data of prison inmates,

Seems to support what I was saying: if you add that up, about 90% of the guns used or possessed by state inmates were in their possession illegally. That's what I was referring to by "illegal gun", because a gun becomes an illegal gun when it is transferred from an owner who may possess it legally to someone who may not possess it legally.

If you think that you can choke the supply of illegal guns by choking the supply of legal guns, you're right, you can do that. It worked, for example, in the GDR. In fact, the GDR achieved very low overall crime rates. Of course, everybody's life was completely supervised by their government, they could not travel abroad, and any behavior or ideas that were thought to threaten the security of the state or society resulted in being sent to a psychiatric institution. That is exactly the direction we are heading, and there is a continuum between where we are now (more liberty, more crime, and more inequality than most other developed nations) to where nations like the GDR are (no liberty, nearly no crime, nearly no inequality). Where people like you and Obama are vague, naive, or dishonest (it is hard to tell which), is that you promise to deliver the benefits without the loss of liberty. You haven't experienced it, I have: believe me, it is not a good direction to go into.

I realized this was a tall order when I asked you and because I knew you didn't have data to back up your assertion. The reason is nobody collects really good statistics. Criminals who know they're going to commit crimes with guns often take steps to remove serial numbers and thus traceability. But that is not by any means all criminals. Some people bought guns with no evil intent and only ended up committing crimes with them later when circumstances they did not anticipate happened. (Arguments are the immediate causes of about 30% to 40% of homicides but that doesn't apply to a number of categories of gun crime). Of those who do acquire guns with bad intent, most of them buy them one way or another.

The trouble is that the information is largely not collected in the first place. Most guns involved in crimes are never traced with respect to how they were acquired. However, according to this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The rest are purchased. There are no really reliable statistics detailing how many of these purchased guns were purchased legally versus illegally.

Those data are pretty old, but I doubt that stat has changed markedly.

Also see this study from Maryland https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242922

“guns sold in Maryland during the 1990s had at least a 4.7-percent chance of being recovered by police in association with a crime somewhere in the Nation within 10 years. Handguns sold in the Baltimore area had a 3.2-percent chance of being recovered in Baltimore within 5 years” “Most guns recovered in crimes had been sold by a relatively small proportion of dealers located in or close to urban areas.” “The simultaneous or rapid purchase of multiple guns by one individual was a risk factor for gun trafficking related to their criminal use.”

According to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt based on survey data of prison inmates,

In 1997, 14% of State inmates who had used or possessed a firearm during their current offense bought or traded for it from a retail store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show. Nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon from family or friends. About 3 in 10 received the weapon from drug dealers, off the street, or through the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained their gun during a robbery, burglary, or other type of theft.

I didn't say murders, I said deaths. Because that is the appropriate comparison with motor vehicle deaths.

No, it's not, because most firearms deaths are suicides -- almost all of those people would kill themselves by other means if firearms magically became unavailable, while many people killed in car crashes would survive if we magically had better mass transit.

Conflating homicides with suicides under the title "gun deaths" is an intellectually dishonest tactic. I assumed you weren't doing it.

I've no idea what point you want to make with the estimate of "defensive firearms", as you don't say.

I would think that pointing out that defensive firearms uses are at least ten times, perhaps 250 times, more common than murders using firearms would speak for itself. If you choose not to see the point, all I can do is offer my hopes that you someday become less blinded by your biases.

But given the source of the figures is a gun lobby site, the figures are not reputable anyway.

Evidence that guncite.com is owned by lobbyists? Or do you just like to dismiss information contrary to your biases with such labels?

You can find those same numbers cited in a National Criminal Justice Reference Service publication here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

The number comes from that idiot Bloomburg and was a deliberate lie, he knew the truth before he said it.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

That number's not really important, as it could be perfectly legitimate transfers, like from parent to (presumably adult) child or between good friends who know that the other is not a criminal. No harm there.

Of the 40% cited (likely from this study), 39% of the approximately 40% were transfers to friends and family. 4% were from gun shows, but a good percentage of those were likely from licensed dealers, and thus subject to background checks.

Citation needed.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

It's acquisitions, though, not purchases. 39% of the approximately 40% of acquisitions not done through a FFL are from either friends or family members, and the vast majority of those were likely purchased from FFLs, or acquired from friends or family.

It's a misleading statistic, to be sure.

I live in one of the most gun-friendly states in the country (AZ). I've been to a number of gun shows. The vast majority of the dealers are FFLs, which means that you have to follow federal background check laws. Trying to see how "easy" it was to get from a private dealer, I went to most of the dealers in the Crossroads of the West show. In the whole show, I found two private dealers - one for handguns, one only selling long-guns. It was far, far, far less than 40%. Here in AZ, I'd estimate the percentage of guns sold at major gun shows by private sellers to be in the single digit percentage.

The original 40% statistic, by the way, likely came from this:

Bloomberg’s office pointed us to a 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them. The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on a random survey of more than 2,500 households.

This is very different from being a "gun show" thing. If you actually read the study, the study looks at transactions (including acquisitions). 19% of people acquired their guns as a gift, and 8 percent obtained them through inheritance or a swap of some kind (often trading one gun for another, which doesn't really increase the number of people with guns).

Again, from the survey:
"About 60 percent of gun acquisitions involved federally licensed dealers". 39% of gun acquisitions come from family members or friends. 4% of guns came from gun shows, many of which are licensed dealers. All in all, about 1-2% of gun acquisitions appear to be from private party gun sales at gun shows. This would be consistent with my personal experience.

What gun show loophole?

You watch too much TV. Its hard to have dialog in the show unless there are partners.

Seriously, the only places you see two officer cars are in areas where crime is so rampant that cops are afraid
to go alone.

Even cities that are known for two officer cars don't use that model all the time (NYC for example typically use one officer cars in the burbs). San Diego actually found it safer and more efficient to have only one officer per car.

The FBI collected information for a period from January 1960 to September 1962 and found that in American cities deploying both types of vehicles, 65% of the officers killed while on duty killed were in two-officer vehicles while only 35% were in one-officer vehicles. This statistic seems to indicate that the presence of a second officer does not guarantee personal safety. From Here

Every time a single officer is killed it becomes a big emotional issue but most departments run single officer cars in most areas for most of the time, with some exceptions for high crime cities.

Are you talking about Swedish examples? If so then this very case is an example in itself- Svartholm isn't wanted in the US. Though if you want an actual factual article about how solitary is endemic in the Swedish justice system, you may want to start here:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=201907

If you're talking about British examples then even Abu Hamza wasn't kept in solitary in the UK, and Richard O'Dwyer is even being allowed to walk free and finish his degree until extradition goes ahead (if it does).

So I'm not really sure what your point is, or did you not actually have one?

Show me yours, cuz I'm showing you mine... Here's a 2007 study on just rape by the National Department of Justice, and in particular the rapes that involve the use of incapacitation and rape drugs. You can't tell me that slipping a ruffy into a girls drink qualifies as foreplay or that what follows is consensual. Fact is, there is an epidemic of rape, and a lot of it is violent, involves incapacitation, and is undereported because clowns like you minimize the importance of dealing with this problem with the gravity it deserves and stigmatize the victims. Your position is irresponsible, and I'm sorry you know someone who was unfairly treated. That doesn't excuse the behavior or make it any less of a problem in our culture. You show me your numbers. mine say its one of the most common bad things that happens to women in this society. Please, change my mind, show me that its all just a mistake, and women are conniving bitches out to lead poor men to the slaughter. Yeah, I didn't think so.

Here's a link directly to the CDC / NIJ paper - apologies, it was posted in a separate branch of commentary to this article.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf

blargh, the first link should be to to this address

This study conducted in the late 90's found that about 17.6% of American women had experienced attempted or completed rape, with 13% experience completed rape (more summary stats here), and this study from 2007 found that 18% of American women had experienced rape. I'm not sure Rei's number of 1 in 4 came from (a different country perhaps?), but a rate of 1 in 6 is shockingly high.

This study conducted in the late 90's found that about 17.6% of American women had experienced attempted or completed rape, with 13% experience completed rape (more summary stats here), and this study from 2007 found that 18% of American women had experienced rape. I'm not sure Rei's number of 1 in 4 came from (a different country perhaps?), but a rate of 1 in 6 is shockingly high.

you could start with https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf - which concludes 17.6% of women will be raped, IN THEIR LIFETIME. It's not 1-in-4, but "approximately 1 in 5" is a sobering enough number.

You could then move on to https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf, which concludes 18% of women will experience rape in their lifetime. Again, sobering numbers.

If you'd like to read through those studies and point out flaws in their methodology, we could discuss whether or not those numbers are accurate, but I'm certainly going to lend more credibility to published statistical surveys from the CDC and Dept. of Justice than I am to some random slashdotter going "that number doesn't FEEL right to me, I think it's a lesbian-feminist conspiracy against men."

you could start with https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf - which concludes 17.6% of women will be raped, IN THEIR LIFETIME. It's not 1-in-4, but "approximately 1 in 5" is a sobering enough number.

You could then move on to https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf, which concludes 18% of women will experience rape in their lifetime. Again, sobering numbers.

If you'd like to read through those studies and point out flaws in their methodology, we could discuss whether or not those numbers are accurate, but I'm certainly going to lend more credibility to published statistical surveys from the CDC and Dept. of Justice than I am to some random slashdotter going "that number doesn't FEEL right to me, I think it's a lesbian-feminist conspiracy against men."