FBI: Violent Drops To 1970s Level

[mope54]

Oh Jesus Christ, I replaced "almost entirely" with "primarily". You just can't apologize and admit when you're wrong, eh? Its ok, its cute.

I'm not incorrect. I'm just not bothering to go down the rabbit hole with you and challenge your absurd position that most terrorists are muslims or equally absurd claim that most violence comes from one specific race or even primarily one race

all of those claims are objectively wrong

and your knowledge about subcultures of violence is just completely opposite of the data
I gave a list of bread crumbs that interested people could follow to learn about it more, but knowledge about a topic is not something you've demonstrated you're particularly interested in when it comes to opining about "certain races"

 

[Ducman69]

or equally absurd claim that most violence comes from one specific race

Look, I don't care if you have the last word, but stop insisting that I'm saying things I didn't say. I know that's Liberalism 101, but somehow you're going to have to resist the urge to scream "RACIST" and build up some nonsense strawman. At no point did I say that hispanics commit all the crime in America in my example. *epic facepalm*

I suppose I should thank you though, as you're accurately portraying exactly what I am claiming is wrong with left-wing America and the harm they do to our society with such behavior.

If its any consolation, the appointed King of Liberals Bill Maher even agrees with me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9i7fRy26V4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA64SX_52m8

Title is so appropriate too, "Liberals Afraid to Criticize & be Called Racists", which is such a systemic problem.

 

[guitarguy6]

Wait, so the legalization of marijuana and violent video games hasn't released Satan's army from the depths of hell?

Don't forget the gay marriage Gay stoner video gamers are quite happy and non violent.

 

[MrCaffeineX]

Old Detroit, that's what Robocop is for

Only the old-school, Peter Weller Robocop, not this rehashed attempt at the same level of satire/sarcasm. Though I did enjoy Samuel L. Jackson's character. I've always imagined Rush Limbaugh would behave like that if he was on TV.

 

[mope54]

Look, I don't care if you have the last word, but stop insisting that I'm saying things I didn't say.

At no point did I say that hispanics commit all the crime in America in my example. *epic facepalm*

True, you did not single out Hispanics. What did you mean with this sentence?

Those demographics are often almost entirely of a certain race

Which demographics are you referring to and which race, specifically?

 

[SGA76]

Yet people are still so scared that cops are arresting mom's for letting their 10-year olds walk a block to a park to play by themselves.

At that age my brother and I rode our bicycles 5 miles across town to our grandparents when mom and dad had evening shifts to work.
At that age, my parents went wherever the he'll they wanted so long as they were home by 7pm for dinner (and wore watches).
At that age my grandparents (from Tennessee) took guns and knives and spent an entire day walking across a mountain to get to their aunt's house, hunted along the way, and cleaned and cooked a rabbit or squirrel halfway through a day long trip.

 

[MrCaffeineX]

Why am I picturing Eugene right now?

People have control over the image they project though. I could get a mohawk, spike it with blue wax, get a bunch of tattoos, get a leather jacket and skin tight jeans with holes in them, and spit on the sidewalk and grab my crotch a lot... that's my choice, but I have to accept responsibility for the image I project when I choose to do so.

And hell if I dress up in a dark blue shirt and slacks with a black belt and shoes and holstered gun driving around in a white Crown Vic with a crash bar on the front, I wouldn't be pissed off if somebody came up to me and assumed I was a cop, heh. You don't have time to get to know every single individual you meet, and life experience can fill in many gaps about people from how they talk to you, dress, walk, cut their hair, etc. You can always amend the first impression, but that doesn't mean that first impressions aren't a crucial and valuable tool in everyday life.

True, and I do not necessarily fault anyone for making the assumption that I am a redneck. I understand that that is how some people's initial impression will be formed. Besides, I rather enjoy being able to defy the stereotype and I can clean up when I have to...

With respect to the drop in violent crime rates, there are so many variables involved that it is nearly impossible to use one as the deciding factor to effectively draw conclusions from. Further restricting the discussion by artificially imposing guidelines based on a mistaken notion of political correctness basically ensures that no legitimate analysis can be done.

Personally, I would like to think that violent crime rates have dropped because we are evolving culturally and as a society, but reality often has a way of making one realize that this is simply wishful thinking.

 

[lcpiper]

I'm not incorrect. I'm just not bothering to go down the rabbit hole with you and challenge your absurd position that most terrorists are muslims or equally absurd claim that most violence comes from one specific race or even primarily one race

all of those claims are objectively wrong

and your knowledge about subcultures of violence is just completely opposite of the data
I gave a list of bread crumbs that interested people could follow to learn about it more, but knowledge about a topic is not something you've demonstrated you're particularly interested in when it comes to opining about "certain races"

But, most terrorists are Muslim. that one is true.

 

[mope54]

Personally, I would like to think that violent crime rates have dropped because we are evolving culturally and as a society, but reality often has a way of making one realize that this is simply wishful thinking.

The blunt reality is that in wealthier parts of the country crime has dropped to the floor whereas in other parts of the country crime has skyrocketed. The national average, combining all of those figures, has dropped but the experiences of people has shifted dramatically. Those who were statistically safe before are even more safe and those who were statistically in danger before are in even more danger.

Neither of those points detracts from the larger one, which is that regardless of how low our crime becomes it's still higher than every other country's that looks like ours. That's been the case since pretty much from the turn of the 20th century.

I do credit the article for passively correcting Dr. Fox' inaccurate linkage of low crimes with higher incarceration rates. Hopefully people reading the article get to the end and assess the data themselves because it couldn't be more clear that he's wrong in his assessment.

 

[mope54]

But, most terrorists are Muslim. that one is true.

No, that is not true.

It's not true for the rest of the world, it's not true historically, it's not even true within our own borders where, for people apparently too young to remember or know about, the threat was from our own internal (domestic) groups.

 

[Ducman69]

Neither of those points detracts from the larger one, which is that regardless of how low our crime becomes it's still higher than every other country's that looks like ours. That's been the case since pretty much from the turn of the 20th century.

Not true, the US did have a higher crime rate, but it has been getting better and better every year for ages now, to the point we are quite low.

The UK for example has 5 times the violent crime rate of the US:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents

The biggest problem in the UK is with "stranger violence", where the victim has never before met the attacker, which has been attributed to the mass of illegal aliens from poorer countries flocking into the large cities, and their impotent police force that is hampered by a lack of tools and a very politically-correct sensibilities of leadership have been unable to stem the tide of violence against their citizenry.

Trust me, the grass is not always greener.

 

[HardUp4HardWare]

In other news the FBI has a bridge in New York to sell you.

 

[lcpiper]

I just knew someone was going to go down this road. Crime hasn't just recently started to go down, it's been going down since the 70s long before castle doctrine and carry licenses became en vogue. It has nothing to do with culture, but with opportunities. Notice how people like you are just now getting scared, because the last recession was the first one in a long while that actually affected you.

Violent crime increased all through the 70s and peaked in the early 80s and then surged again late 80s early 90s and then it began dropping until we have returned to a rate similar to 1970.

 

[mope54]

Not true, the US did have a higher crime rate, but it has been getting better and better every year for ages now, to the point we are quite low.

The UK for example has 5 times the violent crime rate of the US:

Trust me, the grass is not always greener.

No, you don't understand the data that you are trying to use here.

 

[lcpiper]

No, that is not true.

It's not true for the rest of the world, it's not true historically, it's not even true within our own borders where, for people apparently too young to remember or know about, the threat was from our own internal (domestic) groups.

I think you don't know what a terrorist is. I think you don't have an accurate appreciation for just how many active terrorists there are in the world or how much terrorist activity is on-going. Perhaps it's because you have a law enforcement view and schooling as opposed to a military background and experience. I think you have a tend to classify things as terrorist or non-terrorist differently then I would. Perhaps we need to start with a definition of what is terrorist and what is not terrorist.
Find a link that you believe is an accurate definition.

Here is mine;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

ter·ror·ism
noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

 

[mope54]

I think you don't know what a terrorist is. I think you don't have an accurate appreciation for just how many active terrorists there are in the world or how much terrorist activity is on-going. Perhaps it's because you have a law enforcement view and schooling as opposed to a military background and experience. I think you have a tend to classify things as terrorist or non-terrorist differently then I would. Perhaps we need to start with a definition of what is terrorist and what is not terrorist.
Find a link that you believe is an accurate definition.

Here is mine;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

So you acknowledge my doctorate in criminology but opine that I may not understand the definition of terrorism?

Well, luckily it's not about opinions right? It's about history and we have large databases tracking terrorism.

Here are some links for your edification:
a story analyzing the data:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...ttacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html

here is a global terrorism database:
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/about/

you may have been fighting terrorism in muslim countries but that does not comprise the majority of terrorist attacks in this country and not in other countries.

I don't know how you make the claim otherwise unless you ignore some fairly well-known terrorism across the globe that is non-muslim.

 

[Ducman69]

Violent crime increased all through the 70s and peaked in the early 80s and then surged again late 80s early 90s and then it began dropping until we have returned to a rate similar to 1970.

I remember as a kid in the 80s, a huge amount of the crime was gang on gang violence; or at least the media made it seem like a big deal.

It really makes the statistics seem like you can't walk to your community mailbox in the suburbs without getting shot in a drive-by, but the reality I think was that overall the country was already very safe it was just certain really bad neighborhoods and young career criminals caught up in turf wars that screwed up statistics.

I don't think the bloods and crips for example have near the membership they did back in the 80s, and honestly if we legalize popular drugs like marijuana, I can see that whole underground industry collapsing. That's my guess anyway.

Reminds me of the South Park episode where they made KFC illegal, lol!

 

[lcpiper]

Here is a decent link for a general picture of the situation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations

Here is the State Departments list.
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

This seems to be a well thought out position, it says that "Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is on another planet with his estimate of as many as 650 million jihadists - one in every two Muslims." That "Middle East political commentator Daniel Pipes says that there are no less than 130 million Islamic jihadists". But this man says "there are 1.8 million actual Islamic jihadists on the planet today".

Now if you can live with his figure of 1.8 million Jihadists then the only question is to get a good handle on how many non-Jihadists their are running around with a gun and a cause. Do you think there is another Non Muslim group numbering anywhere near this 1.8 million number?

 

[lcpiper]

So you acknowledge my doctorate in criminology but opine that I may not understand the definition of terrorism?

Well, luckily it's not about opinions right? It's about history and we have large databases tracking terrorism.

Here are some links for your edification:
a story analyzing the data:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...ttacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html

here is a global terrorism database:
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/about/

you may have been fighting terrorism in muslim countries but that does not comprise the majority of terrorist attacks in this country and not in other countries.

I don't know how you make the claim otherwise unless you ignore some fairly well-known terrorism across the globe that is non-muslim.

Never said anything about attacks, I said most terrorists are Muslim. How prolific or active they may be is not part of this statement.

 

[lcpiper]

And pointing to data on terrorism in the US is pointing to a subset of the whole and doesn't prove anything at all on a statement that encompasses the world. You know for such an educated fella you seem to have a problem defining scope.

 

[TwistedAegis]

So, anyone who is Muslim and who has a grievance (and/or a gun) is now a terrorist. Awesome, that doesn't seem a way to self-perpetuate the 'war on terror' into eternity at all.

 

[Ducman69]

Never said anything about attacks, I said most terrorists are Muslim. How prolific or active they may be is not part of this statement.

These days the FBI classifies just about everything as "domestic terrorism", but you're right you'd have to be deaf and blind not to recognize the militant islamic threat. At the very least, there aren't too many militant buddhists threatening the Western hemisphere, lmao!

 

[lcpiper]

Hey now, the Chinese are taking the Tibetans very seriously these days, it's a crackdown for sure.

No serious, I don't know where TwistedAegis is going but it shouldn't be hard to see how many Iraqis have been killed since the US pulled out of the cities and then mostly out of the country. It's sad the Iraqi Government couldn't find a way to hold it together. I imagine TwistedAegis still has a view that this whole thing is just about Muslims attacking Non-Muslims but man when I was there our guys spent most of their time just trying to keep the Shia and Sunni from killing each other and of course not getting bit by the two dogs who were actually doing the fighting.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Right, and what role do our servicemen have getting between a civil war, and meanwhile curtailing our civil liberties due to "terrorists" on both sides?

And I'm hoping we don't put the Tibetans on our terrorism list, that would be amazingly ridiculous. I've been to Lhasa, and seen the Chinese soldiers on every block with grenade launchers, assault rifles and riot shotguns. They also literally goosestep in platoon sized patrols through the daily market. Sorry, not sure where you were going with Tibet, is that the ideal you're looking for?

 

[lcpiper]

Right, and what role do our servicemen have getting between a civil war, and meanwhile curtailing our civil liberties due to "terrorists" on both sides?

And I'm hoping we don't put the Tibetans on our terrorism list, that would be amazingly ridiculous. I've been to Lhasa, and seen the Chinese soldiers on every block with grenade launchers, assault rifles and riot shotguns. They also literally goosestep in platoon sized patrols through the daily market. Sorry, not sure where you were going with Tibet, is that the ideal you're looking for?

First, The Servicemen have NO Role, they neither set policy nor are they the Commander in Chief, if you want to know specifically then Commander in Chief, President of the USA, is the title you are looking for when it comes to that question.

Second, The Servicemen have done nothing at all to curtail your Civil Liberties. If you have an example of a Soldier, marine, Sailor, or Airman who has taken some action or denied you something please by all means put it out there and I might can explain it to you, but I am figuring you simply misspoke.

As for Tibet, I was just poking fun with Ducman69's remark about militant Buddhists. You've been to Tibet, I'm jealous.

 

[lcpiper]

Ohh, and although the Soldiers weren't on every block there were plenty all over in Korea, heck even the cops had M16s in the early days. Buses had to stop at check points and soldiers with their rifles would walk up and down inside looking for something wrong and it was actually for a good reason. The North Korean's were always up to some stunt. One time they just took a about 200 men and dressed them up as South Korean Soldiers, infiltrated across the border, then got into formation and literally marched all the way to Seoul like they were making the movie Strips or something. Problem was their maps were no longer correct, they got a little lost, took a wrong turn, started getting nervous and MPs at one of those bus check points stopped them and started asking questions, turned into a gun fight and they were all killed and very few captured.

So what about Tibet, are all the soldiers out for a good reason?

 

[TwistedAegis]

Damnit, accidentally hit backspace outside of the textbox and deleted everything.

Definitely wasn't implicating servicemen and women there at all; they're the spear being wielded by the politicians back in Washington, who are also curtailing privacy under the pretext that it's somehow needed to combat Sunni's and Shia's in the ME.

As for Tibet, it's amazing. You can definitely see the hard fist under the glove though for China, which does do some good things, but not in Tibet. They give huge financial incentives and subsidies for Han Chinese to come in and buy up property, as well as open up businesses, diluting Tibetan control and who knows, maybe their population.

 

[TwistedAegis]

No, those Chinese soldiers definitely weren't there to protect the Tibetans, they were there to clamp down on unrest (I was there around some anniversary or other of Tienanmen Square which also visiting near that holiday, a bit surreal). When we were first driving in I was going to take a picture, but our Tibetan guide quickly pulled my hand down and told me pictures of the troops were strictly forbidden. They also prevent the Buddhists from actually using the Potala Palace as a place of worship, sadly.

Although I will say, Buddhism get's a free pass from a lot of people on the organized religion= bad front. But as beautiful as their temples are, all the bhodisatvas and other icons are literally piled eye-high with money from all the dirt poor people who come in but still literally throw cash at the things for blessings.

 

[SGA76]

 

[TwistedAegis]

Anyway, back to violence in America. I think even more than the overall drop in violent crime, if you're not involved in the drug trade and don't live in a bad part of town, your risk of being a victim of violent crime is much, much smaller even. Those crimes that do happen will likely be those "of passion", which is a shitty way to call crimes of former loved ones against one another.

 

[lcpiper]

Like I said above, it's less about fighting Sunnis and Shias and more about keeping them from killing each other. You know at first, right after the real war part, when we had the Iraqi military beat down and yes, subjugated, there is no more accurate word for it, the ones who stayed in a uniform were killed or captured and no grey in between. Then we declared the war over and dug in to try and get a stable government up and running that would support a democracy but the Shia Sunni infighting never let up. Once the actually combat against their military was over and they got a little used to us being around they realized that we were not there to hurt them of course they still had the old family grudges to settle, acts that must be made for the sake of honor. Of course there were the other guys, the insurgents, Taliban, etc. They were the ones who would really target and try to hurt US troops. In a way Iraq was just a backdrop for a scene that was going to be played out somewhere and it happened to be there because that is where we went. It's like we beat them down in Afghanistan and we didn't think they would come back for another beat down there so we decide to camp out somewhere else so they could come to us and we could kill them and Iraq was a convenient excuse for a place.

As for importing foreigners and subsidizing them as they take the place in the business community of natives, I see that right here, do you?

 

[TwistedAegis]

No, I see native owners using cheap nearly slave labor to grow the value of their businesses, not native owners being displaced. It isn't Tibetans bringing in cheap Han Chinese to drive up profit margins.

 

[lcpiper]

Anyway, back to violence in America. I think even more than the overall drop in violent crime, if you're not involved in the drug trade and don't live in a bad part of town, your risk of being a victim of violent crime is much, much smaller even. Those crimes that do happen will likely be those "of passion", which is a shitty way to call crimes of former loved ones against one another.

I bet the statistics would agree with you here. Still, where I live, other things happen. I am less then 30 miles from the Mexican border and we get people here killed by the coyotes and drug runners. A rancher was killed a couple of years ago, they came to his house, killed him and took what they wanted and left. Out here you don't know what you'll run into. Just as dangerous are the ones in trucks and cars running from the BP, they will get up to 100+ MPH and they will blow through a red light or right into town no problem at all in order to escape, killed some people that way a few times. If you want to see who our cops are arresting these days it's not hard to find an example;
http://www.svherald.com/content/submitted/2014/11/07/391792

It's funny, they don't look like young Americans doing a doobie on a chill weekend do they?

 

[TwistedAegis]

Definitely not. That's why we need to legalize it, don't see Philip Morris employees running around gunning people down!

 

[Ducman69]

A rancher was killed a couple of years ago, they came to his house, killed him and took what they wanted and left. Out here you don't know what you'll run into.

Heard of instances like that multiple times, not always fatalities, but attacks. They even put signs up to tell people in certain areas that its a danger zone for coyotes and drug runners... its like the fuck, as the government your solution is to put up signs? How about two bigass fences, some mines between them, and some thermal cameras on tall poles to survey the area and let national guard take out the drug runners and coyotes. Heck, they can do it from the comfort of one of those zero gravity chairs using an armed drone.

 

[lcpiper]

I truly just think there must be too much in incentive offered here for them to resist coming here. I mean why make your way through all that crap and risk your lives and what you have for a family fortune if there wasn't a promise here that offered enough to make it worth while. I know one dude, he works at a barbershop here on base, he made like 7 trips across, finally got somewhere and was able to hook up with an American chick for his Green Card, now He's legal. Funny thing is, He talks like he hates the illegals, now I don't hate them, more I pity them, but this guy, I don't think he hates them either. I think he just talks bad about them because He thinks He'll be accepted or something, it's like He's just saying what He thinks we want to hear you know? Too long afraid, too long the chameleon.

 

[Red Squirrel]

There was more lag in 1970's too. Video games don't cause violence, lag does.

 

[TwistedAegis]

I truly just think there must be too much in incentive offered here for them to resist coming here. I mean why make your way through all that crap and risk your lives and what you have for a family fortune if there wasn't a promise here that offered enough to make it worth while. I know one dude, he works at a barbershop here on base, he made like 7 trips across, finally got somewhere and was able to hook up with an American chick for his Green Card, now He's legal. Funny thing is, He talks like he hates the illegals, now I don't hate them, more I pity them, but this guy, I don't think he hates them either. I think he just talks bad about them because He thinks He'll be accepted or something, it's like He's just saying what He thinks we want to hear you know? Too long afraid, too long the chameleon.

The US and Mexico is the largest land border with the largest GDP per capita disparity in the world. Yeah, a lot of economic incentive to get up here, even with the hardship.

Honestly, people make them out like leeches, but fuck takes a lot of hard work and guts to get up here, and from what I've seen, the vast majority also seek to actually work and work hard.

 

[Ducman69]

The US and Mexico is the largest land border with the largest GDP per capita disparity in the world. Yeah, a lot of economic incentive to get up here, even with the hardship.

Honestly, people make them out like leeches, but fuck takes a lot of hard work and guts to get up here, and from what I've seen, the vast majority also seek to actually work and work hard.

I don't know anyone that claims they don't come to work. What I do know though is that there's a very basic concept called "net tax contributor".

What that means is that the services you provide to the country have a market price that gives you a tax contribution to the public that exceeds your tax cost for services rendered. People that can't find work South of the border from Mexico and below that can't find any work in their own countries, and don't even have a highschool education, nor speak the language, end up doing low-skilled labor more often than not. They get married and have children, and their costs far exceed their contribution placing tremendous strain on social services, drastically flooding the unskilled labor pool causing unemployment and wage depression among the existing poor, and generally areas with many illegals have infrastructure that starts to fall apart and in essence you are importing poverty.

What you want from an immigration standpoint is the exact opposite. You want someone that already had their education paid for by another country, which is much of the investment from that economy, then when already a "matured" fruit is attracted to your country where their tax contribution greatly exceeds their cost, providing an economic boost to society at large and improving quality of life. So a heart surgeon from France? Welcome them with open arms. An unskilled laborer working hourly odd jobs and not paying any taxes (undocumented) save for sales taxes for minimal purchases here, and sending the money home to support his family, or worse importing the family here by virtue of an "anchor baby" hurts everyone else.

Its not really rocket science.

The left-winger politicians want the votes of the instantly naturalized children that grow up to be very sympathetic to other border jumpers, and so they fight measures put in that would benefit the American economy and people in exchange for political power, and try to shut down opponents to this by pulling the race card and labeling them bigots. Sadly this strategy is immensely successful.

 

[mope54]

wtf, lol, every single post you make Ducman is completely 180 degrees from reality

undocumented workers are net positive contributors to the economy
this has been researched out and the data are in and you're wrong (again). you just keep pilling your wild accusations and assumptions on top of one another making it nearly impossible to peel the onion

there are a whole bunch of interesting (and cited) quotes at the end of this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...d_States#Economic_costs_of_illegal_immigrants

here's the first one:

Professor of Law Francine Lipman [57] writes that the belief that illegal migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false". Lipman asserts that "illegal immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs."[58]

pick your partisan...they're all on board with undocumented workers because they benefit the economy