The higher crime rate is caused by racism. When being Black gets you a maximum sentence for every crime you commit, while White Johnny gets walked home by the police, and a good talking to by Daddy, with no record whatsoever of the encounter, Blacks are more criminal because the 1% that commits crimes gets arrested and convicted 100% of the time, and whites aren't more criminal because the 10% that commit crimes are convicted 1% of the time.
Crime convictions are higher, but corrected for recidivism, crime rate is the same or less in Blacks than whites. And no, that's not accounting for SES or other "obvious" factors. When you correct only for recidivism, Blacks are less offending than whites.
So I'd say his statement is both true and a lie. It's given to give an incorrect impression of reality, making it a lie. But is technically true, when you define "crime" as "rate of conviction (by white cops, judges, and juries in a racist system)".
Aside from possibly wishful thinking what is your basis for any of these beliefs?
Reality. What's your basis?
Romancing Alaska, huh? Would you care to rely on your winning debate skills in the relatively unlikely event a Kodiak came calling on your camp?
I've been to Kodiak Island and saw the bears there from which the species of North American Brown Bear gets one of its nicknames (no, I don't know where Grizzly comes from). You stand your ground and stay quiet (or play dead if they surprise you as you are sleeping), and they generally leave you alone. Get loud if they get too close. All a.45 will do is piss them off. If you have a firearm, you are better to shoot it at the ground in front of them. The sound scares them more than a handgun (of any size) has a chance to kill them.
For the brown bear, attack. Brown bears are really large rats, they eat carrion, so playing dead doesn't work. But they don't like a fight. There are stories of people hitting one on the nose, and the bear running off. Or all the YouTube videos of cats chasing off a bear. No need for a gun for either. Bear spray works as good, but mainly for the sound of the spray, not the object coming out of it (much like the gun).
I don't know of too many "pro-gun" people who also carry and are in favor of large government.
Odd, all of them I know want lots of prisons, full of undesirables, and lots of expensive military. That's a large government stance, even if you don't like it worded that way. The single largest expense of the government isn't welfare, it's military. We have a big government not because of welfare (though that's always blamed) but because of the military.
If this sells well and becomes common, how are cops supposed differentiate between this gun and a cellphone from 10 feet away?
Why would they need to? A cell phone is harmless, as is this, when folded to look like a phone. If someone unfolds their phone into a gun, then the cop may suspect it's a gun. Is that a big enough hint?
I think you've answered your own question: in some industries, minimum wage is already at the cost of production,
I've seen that stated many times, but never supported. Janitors and all that, but I've never seen a company fire the cleaning staff and hire Roomba. Roomba doesn't empty the trash bins, and dust the hand-rails.
For companies like Wal-Mart, it's true, but only because the "cost of production" is the wages. Raising the wages raises the cost of production such that the wages never exceed the cost of production, by definition.
But the implication that raising the wages of a low-value employee will result in job loss has never been shown to be true.
That's part of the issue. The cop in the family restaurant is obviously carrying. The CCW permit holder isn't. And you can't tell the CCW permit holder from a criminal. When I'm out hiking and run across someone with a very large firearm strapped to their chest in a manner that's not quick-draw, it's quite obvious they are armed, and not looking for a quick-draw, but going for personal protection, and not from a human. Those who carry looking to protect themselves from humans too often end up like Zimmerman. They worked really hard to get themselves into a situation where they needed it. At least open carry in Alaska is explicitly legal, as it is in more places than people think, but it gets you lots of attention you may not want, which is why CCW is used, but CCW hasn't been shown to increase the safety of those carrying (or those around them).
Only in the US, in many (most?) countries, a conviction doesn't remove any rights, except those necessary to carry out the sentence. I live in a place where prisons set up polling places, as currently serving prisoners get a vote, as much as everyone else does. In the US, ex-prisoners are illegally denied the vote in some places.
They can't be trusted with rubber bullets. Rubber bullets can kill as well. The proper method of using them makes them inaccurate. They were designed to be fired into crowds to disperse protesters, not as a less-lethal response to a single person. The approved use is firing them at the ground near the crowd, and the bullet bounces up into a person, hitting the legs, and causing them to fall, slowing and dispersing the crowd. The psychological effect of hearing a gunshot and seeming a person drop will do more to disperse the crowd than silently shooting them one at a time would. But a rubber bullet to the head is often lethal, and to the chest can be as well. And cops aim high. Center mass of a person is closer to the groin than the heart, but the "center mass" shooting targets have the bulleseye closer to the neck than the groin, about 30% of the person to high, this leads to lots of misses hitting the head, especially with repeated shots, as recoil raises the gun. Despite what we are told, cops are trained to kill, not "stop".
The less-lethal single-person weapon is the bean-bag gun. So a bean-bag gun or shotgun loaded with rock-salt, along with pepper spray, would be about the most they should carry.
In the places where cops don't carry guns, they get shot less. It's safer for the cops to not have guns. They are less likely to be seen as a threat if they find an armed
And it's not "overt racism" in almost anyone. It's the sum of "innocent" racism that kills Blacks.
"Blacks are more likely to use drugs" (a lie)
"Drug users are more dangerous" (not supported by fact, but not proven wrong either)
So, if you want to come home, kill those who threaten you, and being Black is a threat, because they are likely on drugs and dangerous. It's no great leap, it's not "overt racism" but it's a sum of many little lies that cause some groups to be considered a greater threat than others. And that's the problem.
Whites use and deal drugs more than Blacks. But the police patrol and confront Blacks more than Whites. That's the issue. A white gang fight ends with the cops chatting with them while waiting for the vans to cart them away. The Black gangs are shot, then cuffed, then shot again.
Yes, you can google those, they are real examples. It's not hanging around criminals that correlates with violent police confirmations, but the skin color. That's the problem.
The race will make you more likely to have a confrontation, and given a confrontation, more likely to be killed.
So you are saying that if nobody had a gun we'd be less safe than if everyone but the cops had guns?
If someone says "lets disarm everyone, cops last, since they need to oversee the disarming of the population" you see that as a call to arm the police? You aren't following the logic.
Also, someone pointing out that if nobody had guns, we'd all be safer doesn't mean they are for the forced removal of all guns by gunpoint. Sometimes a hypothetical can be used to prove a point when the person using it doesn't believe in it.
Do you advocate that 1) overall policing levels overall should be decreased, while policing levels for white people should remain level, or 2) policing levels for white people should be increased?
Overall levels should remain the same, with enforcement equal across all crimes without regard to skin color, but liklihood of criminal activity.
You realize that the problem is that Niggers are bad. We were teaching this and taught this in the 1700s and 1800s because it de-humanizes them, and we needed that because they were slaves, and enslaving equals would be wrong. So, after centuries of being taught that Niggers are bad people, we treated them as such. This belief saw a resurgence in the US a number of times. And each time, the result was to persecute the uppity Niggers. So, the actual chance of a Black person committing a crime is no more than a white person, but if they do, they are more likely to get arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced for it.
So why target Blacks, who offend at a rate no greater than Whites? You are advocating a race war. (yes, I understand your response is to claim you didn't say anything like that, but I'll leave that to the readers, rather than the denial of the race-war defending poster)
If you wanted lower overall crime rates, you should be advocating lower efforts against Blacks and more effort against Whites. Why do you want high crime rates? A race neutral enforcement would be the most efficient use of resources. But we focus on punishing Blacks because that policy, started in the 1800s (along with the US-(nearly) unique idea of removing voting rights based on criminal status), was to block the uppity Niggers from voting, and remove them from society. Blacks use drugs less than whites, but are portrayed in the media (and to/by the cops) to be more likely drug users. This was true with Heroine and MJ nearly 100 years ago when they were made illegal, and with Crack in the '80s, and even now, when Meth use is over 90% white (when the "black" drugs are targeted for law enforcement, and the "white" drugs are targeted for community support).
Does it have to do with the fact that crime has a higher prevalence rate among the black?
When your first sentence is false, there's no point in reading the rest. A 30 year old Black man with no criminal record is no more likely to commit a crime than a white person, yet is still more likely to be killed by the police.
No, most mass shootings have taken place where guns were legal to carry (offices and public spaces). When you only look at school shootings, yes, most schools are gun free zones (but not all). But that's not the place for most shootings. Just the ones more likely to make the news.
Police officers who are experienced in dealing with hostile and sometimes armed people make that mistake rather often.
Police officers are trained to kill first and ask questions later. Police officers are trained that they are the only good guys, and everyone else is a criminal. Police officers are trained that their lives are more important than anyone else's.
Sit down with one sometime. A nice long conversation. Repeat weekly for a few years. You'll see their soul die. They deal with bad stuff every day, and fail at being human.
If they were human, they'd quit. My sister lasted 1 year at CPS.
There was a family that the parents were fine. But there was the one uncle that kept raping the girl. He'd go to prison, then come out, and rape her again. Of course, the penalites for raping over and over are much less than holding 1g of s banned substance, so he'd not spend much time in jail, and the family was in denial, so the evidence against him was weak (from a court standard, nobody had doubt he was raping her).
So, the choice is, take the girl away from the family (breaking up a stable and loving family) or leave her in that home (knowing it was a sentence for a future rape). So, she did the only sensible thing, and quit. She wanted to help people, but the system doesn't allow that sometimes. The human people quit. The violent attackers with a God complex stay and become life-long officers.
And cops receive very little training on "combat". Most officers don't ever fire a shot. So focusing on combat training would be a waste of time and money. So your average civilian isn't too far off the average cop in terms of training and ability to face a combat situation. Willingness and firearms training would be different, but tactics when facing a sustained firefight, cops have no advantage over civilians.
I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority.
And I've always found it odd that those who carry a gun because they fear the state actors also want more and more State authority to have more and bigger guns (the gun-nuts are pro large-government with large standing army).
You are more likely to die from the added weight of the gun causing you to tip over and fall in a fatal fall than to have the gun save your life because you really needed a cop, and didn't have one handy.
You are much safer without a gun than with.
I have a fire extinguisher, but I am not the fire department.
The difference is that a fire extinguisher makes you safer. A gun only makes you feel safer. Guns are for irrational people only. The problem is they will never recognize that, because they are, well, irrational.
Before the TSA even existed, I tried to get through security with a gun. I was going on a summer trip to relatives, and took something that looked like http://www.weiku.com/products-... I was barred from passing through security with it. So I threw it away.
Yeah, killing someone in custody has never happened. How'd that Lee Harvey Oswald trial go?
As for the corruption index, that's an independent measure done by international organizations I had nothing to do with, and doesn't count imaginary offenses.
You are the one that hates facts. Now you are contradicting yourself about how "rich" they are, and where they are coming form and going to. Lying to make a point just makes you a liar.
Source: Apple. They have the private keys. They can brick and unbrick phones remotely (error 53). That you don't know about it isn't evidence it doesn't/can't happen.
Apple asserts the backdoors are there, and even sell access to them, if you buy iCloud and such. Backup to the cloud. They could remotely enroll the phone in one of those and pull the data off, and had that to the FBI. Or any of a million other ways. Apple owns the root for that phone, even remotely.
Slashdot Mirror
The higher crime rate is caused by racism. When being Black gets you a maximum sentence for every crime you commit, while White Johnny gets walked home by the police, and a good talking to by Daddy, with no record whatsoever of the encounter, Blacks are more criminal because the 1% that commits crimes gets arrested and convicted 100% of the time, and whites aren't more criminal because the 10% that commit crimes are convicted 1% of the time.
Crime convictions are higher, but corrected for recidivism, crime rate is the same or less in Blacks than whites. And no, that's not accounting for SES or other "obvious" factors. When you correct only for recidivism, Blacks are less offending than whites.
So I'd say his statement is both true and a lie. It's given to give an incorrect impression of reality, making it a lie. But is technically true, when you define "crime" as "rate of conviction (by white cops, judges, and juries in a racist system)".
The fix is to disarm the cops. Then they won't shoot anyone, and based on the statistic of countries with unarmed cops, they'll get shot less.
Aside from possibly wishful thinking what is your basis for any of these beliefs?
Reality. What's your basis?
Romancing Alaska, huh? Would you care to rely on your winning debate skills in the relatively unlikely event a Kodiak came calling on your camp?
I've been to Kodiak Island and saw the bears there from which the species of North American Brown Bear gets one of its nicknames (no, I don't know where Grizzly comes from). You stand your ground and stay quiet (or play dead if they surprise you as you are sleeping), and they generally leave you alone. Get loud if they get too close. All a .45 will do is piss them off. If you have a firearm, you are better to shoot it at the ground in front of them. The sound scares them more than a handgun (of any size) has a chance to kill them.
For the brown bear, attack. Brown bears are really large rats, they eat carrion, so playing dead doesn't work. But they don't like a fight. There are stories of people hitting one on the nose, and the bear running off. Or all the YouTube videos of cats chasing off a bear. No need for a gun for either. Bear spray works as good, but mainly for the sound of the spray, not the object coming out of it (much like the gun).
I don't know of too many "pro-gun" people who also carry and are in favor of large government.
Odd, all of them I know want lots of prisons, full of undesirables, and lots of expensive military. That's a large government stance, even if you don't like it worded that way. The single largest expense of the government isn't welfare, it's military. We have a big government not because of welfare (though that's always blamed) but because of the military.
If this sells well and becomes common, how are cops supposed differentiate between this gun and a cellphone from 10 feet away?
Why would they need to? A cell phone is harmless, as is this, when folded to look like a phone. If someone unfolds their phone into a gun, then the cop may suspect it's a gun. Is that a big enough hint?
I refer you to my first point that raising everyone's pay increases the value of no one's pay.
So you are saying that if you raise the wage of the lowest workers from $10 to $15, you automatically raise the wages of the CEO from $10M to $15M?
No, you don't. So the inflation isn't equal, so it works out to a tax on the CEO, paid directly to the poorest workers.
I think you've answered your own question: in some industries, minimum wage is already at the cost of production,
I've seen that stated many times, but never supported. Janitors and all that, but I've never seen a company fire the cleaning staff and hire Roomba. Roomba doesn't empty the trash bins, and dust the hand-rails.
For companies like Wal-Mart, it's true, but only because the "cost of production" is the wages. Raising the wages raises the cost of production such that the wages never exceed the cost of production, by definition.
But the implication that raising the wages of a low-value employee will result in job loss has never been shown to be true.
That's part of the issue. The cop in the family restaurant is obviously carrying. The CCW permit holder isn't. And you can't tell the CCW permit holder from a criminal. When I'm out hiking and run across someone with a very large firearm strapped to their chest in a manner that's not quick-draw, it's quite obvious they are armed, and not looking for a quick-draw, but going for personal protection, and not from a human. Those who carry looking to protect themselves from humans too often end up like Zimmerman. They worked really hard to get themselves into a situation where they needed it. At least open carry in Alaska is explicitly legal, as it is in more places than people think, but it gets you lots of attention you may not want, which is why CCW is used, but CCW hasn't been shown to increase the safety of those carrying (or those around them).
Only in the US, in many (most?) countries, a conviction doesn't remove any rights, except those necessary to carry out the sentence. I live in a place where prisons set up polling places, as currently serving prisoners get a vote, as much as everyone else does. In the US, ex-prisoners are illegally denied the vote in some places.
They can't be trusted with rubber bullets. Rubber bullets can kill as well. The proper method of using them makes them inaccurate. They were designed to be fired into crowds to disperse protesters, not as a less-lethal response to a single person. The approved use is firing them at the ground near the crowd, and the bullet bounces up into a person, hitting the legs, and causing them to fall, slowing and dispersing the crowd. The psychological effect of hearing a gunshot and seeming a person drop will do more to disperse the crowd than silently shooting them one at a time would. But a rubber bullet to the head is often lethal, and to the chest can be as well. And cops aim high. Center mass of a person is closer to the groin than the heart, but the "center mass" shooting targets have the bulleseye closer to the neck than the groin, about 30% of the person to high, this leads to lots of misses hitting the head, especially with repeated shots, as recoil raises the gun. Despite what we are told, cops are trained to kill, not "stop".
The less-lethal single-person weapon is the bean-bag gun. So a bean-bag gun or shotgun loaded with rock-salt, along with pepper spray, would be about the most they should carry.
In the places where cops don't carry guns, they get shot less. It's safer for the cops to not have guns. They are less likely to be seen as a threat if they find an armed
And it's not "overt racism" in almost anyone. It's the sum of "innocent" racism that kills Blacks.
"Blacks are more likely to use drugs" (a lie)
"Drug users are more dangerous" (not supported by fact, but not proven wrong either)
So, if you want to come home, kill those who threaten you, and being Black is a threat, because they are likely on drugs and dangerous. It's no great leap, it's not "overt racism" but it's a sum of many little lies that cause some groups to be considered a greater threat than others. And that's the problem.
Whites use and deal drugs more than Blacks. But the police patrol and confront Blacks more than Whites. That's the issue. A white gang fight ends with the cops chatting with them while waiting for the vans to cart them away. The Black gangs are shot, then cuffed, then shot again.
Yes, you can google those, they are real examples. It's not hanging around criminals that correlates with violent police confirmations, but the skin color. That's the problem.
The race will make you more likely to have a confrontation, and given a confrontation, more likely to be killed.
So you are saying that if nobody had a gun we'd be less safe than if everyone but the cops had guns?
If someone says "lets disarm everyone, cops last, since they need to oversee the disarming of the population" you see that as a call to arm the police? You aren't following the logic.
Also, someone pointing out that if nobody had guns, we'd all be safer doesn't mean they are for the forced removal of all guns by gunpoint. Sometimes a hypothetical can be used to prove a point when the person using it doesn't believe in it.
Do you advocate that 1) overall policing levels overall should be decreased, while policing levels for white people should remain level, or 2) policing levels for white people should be increased?
Overall levels should remain the same, with enforcement equal across all crimes without regard to skin color, but liklihood of criminal activity.
You realize that the problem is that Niggers are bad. We were teaching this and taught this in the 1700s and 1800s because it de-humanizes them, and we needed that because they were slaves, and enslaving equals would be wrong. So, after centuries of being taught that Niggers are bad people, we treated them as such. This belief saw a resurgence in the US a number of times. And each time, the result was to persecute the uppity Niggers. So, the actual chance of a Black person committing a crime is no more than a white person, but if they do, they are more likely to get arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced for it.
So why target Blacks, who offend at a rate no greater than Whites? You are advocating a race war. (yes, I understand your response is to claim you didn't say anything like that, but I'll leave that to the readers, rather than the denial of the race-war defending poster)
If you wanted lower overall crime rates, you should be advocating lower efforts against Blacks and more effort against Whites. Why do you want high crime rates? A race neutral enforcement would be the most efficient use of resources. But we focus on punishing Blacks because that policy, started in the 1800s (along with the US-(nearly) unique idea of removing voting rights based on criminal status), was to block the uppity Niggers from voting, and remove them from society. Blacks use drugs less than whites, but are portrayed in the media (and to/by the cops) to be more likely drug users. This was true with Heroine and MJ nearly 100 years ago when they were made illegal, and with Crack in the '80s, and even now, when Meth use is over 90% white (when the "black" drugs are targeted for law enforcement, and the "white" drugs are targeted for community support).
Does it have to do with the fact that crime has a higher prevalence rate among the black?
When your first sentence is false, there's no point in reading the rest. A 30 year old Black man with no criminal record is no more likely to commit a crime than a white person, yet is still more likely to be killed by the police.
No, most mass shootings have taken place where guns were legal to carry (offices and public spaces). When you only look at school shootings, yes, most schools are gun free zones (but not all). But that's not the place for most shootings. Just the ones more likely to make the news.
Police officers who are experienced in dealing with hostile and sometimes armed people make that mistake rather often.
Police officers are trained to kill first and ask questions later. Police officers are trained that they are the only good guys, and everyone else is a criminal. Police officers are trained that their lives are more important than anyone else's.
Sit down with one sometime. A nice long conversation. Repeat weekly for a few years. You'll see their soul die. They deal with bad stuff every day, and fail at being human.
If they were human, they'd quit. My sister lasted 1 year at CPS.
There was a family that the parents were fine. But there was the one uncle that kept raping the girl. He'd go to prison, then come out, and rape her again. Of course, the penalites for raping over and over are much less than holding 1g of s banned substance, so he'd not spend much time in jail, and the family was in denial, so the evidence against him was weak (from a court standard, nobody had doubt he was raping her).
So, the choice is, take the girl away from the family (breaking up a stable and loving family) or leave her in that home (knowing it was a sentence for a future rape). So, she did the only sensible thing, and quit. She wanted to help people, but the system doesn't allow that sometimes. The human people quit. The violent attackers with a God complex stay and become life-long officers.
And cops receive very little training on "combat". Most officers don't ever fire a shot. So focusing on combat training would be a waste of time and money. So your average civilian isn't too far off the average cop in terms of training and ability to face a combat situation. Willingness and firearms training would be different, but tactics when facing a sustained firefight, cops have no advantage over civilians.
I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority.
And I've always found it odd that those who carry a gun because they fear the state actors also want more and more State authority to have more and bigger guns (the gun-nuts are pro large-government with large standing army).
You are much safer without a gun than with.
I have a fire extinguisher, but I am not the fire department.
The difference is that a fire extinguisher makes you safer. A gun only makes you feel safer. Guns are for irrational people only. The problem is they will never recognize that, because they are, well, irrational.
Before the TSA even existed, I tried to get through security with a gun. I was going on a summer trip to relatives, and took something that looked like http://www.weiku.com/products-... I was barred from passing through security with it. So I threw it away.
Yeah, killing someone in custody has never happened. How'd that Lee Harvey Oswald trial go?
As for the corruption index, that's an independent measure done by international organizations I had nothing to do with, and doesn't count imaginary offenses.
So an update pushed remotely that bricked a phone isn't "bricked remotely"?
You are the one that hates facts. Now you are contradicting yourself about how "rich" they are, and where they are coming form and going to. Lying to make a point just makes you a liar.
Source: Apple. They have the private keys. They can brick and unbrick phones remotely (error 53). That you don't know about it isn't evidence it doesn't/can't happen.
Apple asserts the backdoors are there, and even sell access to them, if you buy iCloud and such. Backup to the cloud. They could remotely enroll the phone in one of those and pull the data off, and had that to the FBI. Or any of a million other ways. Apple owns the root for that phone, even remotely.