White House: "We won't coddle rioters" - it's about damn time!

[jc456]

I think what is important is that violent crime has had a downward trend since the 90's (and maybe longer) - there was a slight increase between 04-06, and a slight increase in 2015 - but the over all trend has been very positive - HUGELY (or shall I say YUGELY) down from the 90's. That's a fact.

The individual areas that still have high rates of crime do so for differing reasons and without addressing some of the underlying causes it will be hard to get them down.

well doing nothing for those areas for eight years certainly didn't help matters did it? But you loved the job obummer did. He did fking nothing

 

[Coyote]

Again. Violent crime in the US is at an all time low.

According to the FBI, violent offenses went up in 2015. From 366 per 100K to 372

Shit man 6 more! They already called out the Guard...

well actually it is six per 100k, and there are 300,000,000 or it's six times 3000 or 18,000 more. But shit, never let math get in the way of fake posting.

There can always be a radial variable in the mix....

yep, it could go up or could go down, it's an average figure. you make light of people being unnecessarily attacked. You are a low form of shit.

No one is making light of individual people being attacked. But it's not very relevant in a discussion about crime rates.

 

[jc456]

And quite a big amount of the crime still around is in the big city black ghettos and latino barrios we have in places like Los Angeles. You know, the barrios where latinos congregate and form gangs after jumping our out of control southern border.

Yes. Poverty has a big influence on crime.

why not work to end poverty rather than keep them locked in an inner city? Trump wants to change that, and you all are against him. I tell you, I don't get you all at all.

1. I think we can all agree on that goal.
2. Trump is no different than every other politician who has sought to end poverty. Just because you support him doesn't mean he has workable ideas on ending poverty. Just because I don't support him doesn't mean I don't want to work to end poverty.
3. Of course you don't get me. You don't try very hard to

well fk, eight years of a black president and the violence got worse in those areas. So there was no commitment to help them in eight years. and again, John Lewis hasn't done shit and pointed out by president trump. Which the media took as trump taking on John Lewis. Well gd dmn right he should. that is unacceptable from a black man representing blacks. So again, no improvements in inner cities in eight years and you agree with me and ***** at trump. hmmmmm you got a screw loose sweetie.

Eight years of a black president (who represents the entire nation, not just a racial demographic) cut the national crime rate almost in half from the time he took office. Why is it so hard for you to give credit?

no, no he didn't sweetie. no matter how you wish to fake the story. individual states allowed conceal and carry and that my friend brought violence down across the country. Now back to the areas that actually needed attention, your guy did jack shit in eight years. And yes, he was the president for those individuals as well as you and they deserved his attention. holy fk you all are a bunch of stupid fks.

 

[Coyote]

I think what is important is that violent crime has had a downward trend since the 90's (and maybe longer) - there was a slight increase between 04-06, and a slight increase in 2015 - but the over all trend has been very positive - HUGELY (or shall I say YUGELY) down from the 90's. That's a fact.

The individual areas that still have high rates of crime do so for differing reasons and without addressing some of the underlying causes it will be hard to get them down.

well doing nothing for those areas for eight years certainly didn't help matters did it? But you loved the job obummer did. He did fking nothing

Again - he reduced the crime rate by almost half, looking at that chart.


WHY is is it so hard for you to credit him with anything?

 

[jc456]

According to the FBI, violent offenses went up in 2015. From 366 per 100K to 372

Shit man 6 more! They already called out the Guard...

well actually it is six per 100k, and there are 300,000,000 or it's six times 3000 or 18,000 more. But shit, never let math get in the way of fake posting.

There can always be a radial variable in the mix....

yep, it could go up or could go down, it's an average figure. you make light of people being unnecessarily attacked. You are a low form of shit.

No one is making light of individual people being attacked. But it's not very relevant in a discussion about crime rates.

while crime happens everyday all day, yes it is. I will disagree with your statement vehemently

 

[jc456]

I think what is important is that violent crime has had a downward trend since the 90's (and maybe longer) - there was a slight increase between 04-06, and a slight increase in 2015 - but the over all trend has been very positive - HUGELY (or shall I say YUGELY) down from the 90's. That's a fact.

The individual areas that still have high rates of crime do so for differing reasons and without addressing some of the underlying causes it will be hard to get them down.

well doing nothing for those areas for eight years certainly didn't help matters did it? But you loved the job obummer did. He did fking nothing

Again - he reduced the crime rate by almost half, looking at that chart.


WHY is is it so hard for you to credit him with anything?

again, he did nothing. conceal and carry passed at the state level did that. Stop trying to give him credit for state accomplishments. they're not his.

 

[jc456]

I think what is important is that violent crime has had a downward trend since the 90's (and maybe longer) - there was a slight increase between 04-06, and a slight increase in 2015 - but the over all trend has been very positive - HUGELY (or shall I say YUGELY) down from the 90's. That's a fact.

The individual areas that still have high rates of crime do so for differing reasons and without addressing some of the underlying causes it will be hard to get them down.

well doing nothing for those areas for eight years certainly didn't help matters did it? But you loved the job obummer did. He did fking nothing

Again - he reduced the crime rate by almost half, looking at that chart.


WHY is is it so hard for you to credit him with anything?

BTW, the biggest criminal is still free. one Hitlery Rotten Clinton

 

[TNHarley]

I think what is important is that violent crime has had a downward trend since the 90's (and maybe longer) - there was a slight increase between 04-06, and a slight increase in 2015 - but the over all trend has been very positive - HUGELY (or shall I say YUGELY) down from the 90's. That's a fact.

The individual areas that still have high rates of crime do so for differing reasons and without addressing some of the underlying causes it will be hard to get them down.

well doing nothing for those areas for eight years certainly didn't help matters did it? But you loved the job obummer did. He did fking nothing

Again - he reduced the crime rate by almost half, looking at that chart.


WHY is is it so hard for you to credit him with anything?

steady trend?

 

[Coyote]

Yes. Poverty has a big influence on crime.

why not work to end poverty rather than keep them locked in an inner city? Trump wants to change that, and you all are against him. I tell you, I don't get you all at all.

1. I think we can all agree on that goal.
2. Trump is no different than every other politician who has sought to end poverty. Just because you support him doesn't mean he has workable ideas on ending poverty. Just because I don't support him doesn't mean I don't want to work to end poverty.
3. Of course you don't get me. You don't try very hard to

well fk, eight years of a black president and the violence got worse in those areas. So there was no commitment to help them in eight years. and again, John Lewis hasn't done shit and pointed out by president trump. Which the media took as trump taking on John Lewis. Well gd dmn right he should. that is unacceptable from a black man representing blacks. So again, no improvements in inner cities in eight years and you agree with me and ***** at trump. hmmmmm you got a screw loose sweetie.

Eight years of a black president (who represents the entire nation, not just a racial demographic) cut the national crime rate almost in half from the time he took office. Why is it so hard for you to give credit?

no, no he didn't sweetie. no matter how you wish to fake the story. individual states allowed conceal and carry and that my friend brought violence down across the country. Now back to the areas that actually needed attention, your guy did jack shit in eight years. And yes, he was the president for those individuals as well as you and they deserved his attention. holy fk you all are a bunch of stupid fks.

You would have to prove there is a direct correlation between conceal carry and crime rates.

So all you can do is call people "stupid *****" rather than give the president any credit for crime rates? Sheesh.

As of 2014: States with the highest violent crime rates...Alaska, Nevada, Tennessee, New Mexico, Florida.

Alaska requires no permit for concealed carry. Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Tennessee require a permit but are a "shall issue" state with no discretion. So these states have the highest rates of violent crime (almost double the national average) yet among the loosest requirements for concealed carry.

 

[Coyote]

I think what is important is that violent crime has had a downward trend since the 90's (and maybe longer) - there was a slight increase between 04-06, and a slight increase in 2015 - but the over all trend has been very positive - HUGELY (or shall I say YUGELY) down from the 90's. That's a fact.

The individual areas that still have high rates of crime do so for differing reasons and without addressing some of the underlying causes it will be hard to get them down.

well doing nothing for those areas for eight years certainly didn't help matters did it? But you loved the job obummer did. He did fking nothing

Again - he reduced the crime rate by almost half, looking at that chart.


WHY is is it so hard for you to credit him with anything?

steady trend?

Look at the chart.

 

[TNHarley]

I did

 

[Tresha91203]

Cracking down on protests....are the rightwing THAT thinskinned they have to silence dissent?

No violence is acceptable. But free speech and protesting are an American right.

Cracking down on rioters, looters and violent "disrupters" ... not cracking down on free speech or protesting. Where did you get "cracking down on protests?"

 

[Coyote]

What Caused the Two-Decade Dip in Crime Rates? Not ‘Good Guys with Guns.’

Defensive gun use is too rare for “good guys with guns” to significantly lower crime rates.
The first mechanism through which permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through direct deterrence, which occurs when an armed civilian uses a gun in self-defense, thereby stopping a crime. The NRA and gun advocates frequently tout surveys conducted by criminologist Gary Kleck indicating that there are around 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year, which would mean millions of criminals being directly deterred from crime.

However, widespread defensive gun use is a myth. The survey results used to extrapolate millions of DGUs suffer from a severe false positive problem and present crime prevention numbers that are mathematically impossible. In fact, as we have detailed in previous articles, not only is defensive gun use no more effective at preventing injury than taking no action at all during a crime, but the best empirical evidence to date from the Gun Violence Archive could also only find 1,600 verified DGUs in 2014. This means that 99.936 percent of Kleck’s claimed DGUs are nowhere to be found, despite those very surveys stating that more than 50 percent of DGUs are reported to the police (meaning there should be a record of them). With so few DGUs, it is not possible for permit holders and concealed carry laws to be reducing crime through direct deterrence.

People’s estimates of concealed carry rates are wildly off — so concealed carry can’t be indirectly deterring criminals, either.
The second way permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through indirect deterrence — when criminals are deterred by the mere threat of confronting an armed civilian. As Lott states, “By the very nature of these guns being concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether the victim is armed before they strike, thus raising criminals’ expected costs for committing many types of crimes.” If criminals perceive that the risk of encountering an armed civilian has increased, they will likely avoid that jurisdiction and choose a different venue for their illegal activities, or not commit the act at all. This requires that criminals are actually sensitive to the prevalence of guns in their environment, and are particularly aware of changes made to state legislation that could potentially influence the quantity of concealed carriers. Until recently, no studies had challenged these assumptions.

Research published last year by Dr. Fortunato of the University of California examined the feasibility of indirect deterrence by conducting a survey asking 1,000 citizens to estimate how many people (out of 1,000) carry a gun in their state. These responses were then cross-referenced with their state’s concealed carry policy (“may issue”, “shall issue”, or “no policy”) and the number of active permits in the state. The paper also controlled for other factors that may influence a population’s belief about the concentration of perceived concealed carriers, such as the depth of legal and illegal firearm market, measurements of state ideology, and rates of firearm violence.

The paper found no statistically significant relationship between a states’ concealed carry policy and people’s perception of the number of firearm carriers in their state. As Fortunato states: “Because beliefs over the distribution of firearm carriers are impervious to permitting policies and do not respond positively to the true distribution of carriers,” increasing the number of concealed carry permits in a state “cannot deter crime.” In other words, people cannot be deterred by the number of permit holders if, on average, people have no clue how prevalent those permits actually are. The paper goes on to concluded that by passing concealed carry laws — which likely increased gun ownership nationwide — “at best, we increase the probability of accidental discharge. At worst, these policies open the door for more violent, potentially deadly, escalations of altercations — altercations that may have ended peacefully if not for the presence of a firearm.”....

We don’t know what caused the big two decade drop in crime rates. We do know it wasn’t concealed carry.
So if concealed carry cannot be responsible for the significant, two decade drop in crime rates, what is? A report from the Brennan Center for Justice published earlier this year sought to tackle that question. Analyzing 40 years of data from all 50 states, the report examined a number of potential causal factors, including RTC laws, and found that the most likely causes were various demographic and socioeconomic factors, the end of the crack cocaine epidemic, and superior policing techniques. However, even these factors were insufficient to explain the entire crime decrease, and the authors concluded that we still don’t fully know why crime dropped precipitously.

But what we do know is that rigorous studies on RTC laws and permit holders, combined with empirical data on defensive gun use and studies of people’s perception of gun prevalence, provide powerful evidence that concealed carry does not reduce crime.​

 

[Coyote]

Cracking down on protests....are the rightwing THAT thinskinned they have to silence dissent?

No violence is acceptable. But free speech and protesting are an American right.

Cracking down on rioters, looters and violent "disrupters" ... not cracking down on free speech or protesting. Where did you get "cracking down on protests?"

I think it could very easily cross the line into cracking down on protests.

 

[Tresha91203]

Cracking down on protests....are the rightwing THAT thinskinned they have to silence dissent?

No violence is acceptable. But free speech and protesting are an American right.

Cracking down on rock throwers, fire starters, and looters.

exactly, I didn't quite understand her post and why I asked for clarification. I guess she doesn't think rocks and fire are weapons. I don't know, I'm trying to better understand her though. I don't want to give up on her.

What don't you understand? I said violence is unacceptable. But people calling for crackdowns on protests and demonstrations need to be very careful.

Where did you get "crack down on protests?" The statement specifically said crack down on rioters, looters and violent disrupters. Rioters, looters and violent disrupters are not protesters. They are criminals

Cracking down on protests....are the rightwing THAT thinskinned they have to silence dissent?

No violence is acceptable. But free speech and protesting are an American right.

Cracking down on rioters, looters and violent "disrupters" ... not cracking down on free speech or protesting. Where did you get "cracking down on protests?"

I think it could very easily cross the line into cracking down on protests.

I don't see how. I think the rioters, looters and violent disrupters need to be removed so that protesters are safe. I think most actual protesters would like the rioters and looters and violent people gone as well.

 

[westwall]

What Caused the Two-Decade Dip in Crime Rates? Not ‘Good Guys with Guns.’

Defensive gun use is too rare for “good guys with guns” to significantly lower crime rates.
The first mechanism through which permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through direct deterrence, which occurs when an armed civilian uses a gun in self-defense, thereby stopping a crime. The NRA and gun advocates frequently tout surveys conducted by criminologist Gary Kleck indicating that there are around 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year, which would mean millions of criminals being directly deterred from crime.

However, widespread defensive gun use is a myth. The survey results used to extrapolate millions of DGUs suffer from a severe false positive problem and present crime prevention numbers that are mathematically impossible. In fact, as we have detailed in previous articles, not only is defensive gun use no more effective at preventing injury than taking no action at all during a crime, but the best empirical evidence to date from the Gun Violence Archive could also only find 1,600 verified DGUs in 2014. This means that 99.936 percent of Kleck’s claimed DGUs are nowhere to be found, despite those very surveys stating that more than 50 percent of DGUs are reported to the police (meaning there should be a record of them). With so few DGUs, it is not possible for permit holders and concealed carry laws to be reducing crime through direct deterrence.

People’s estimates of concealed carry rates are wildly off — so concealed carry can’t be indirectly deterring criminals, either.
The second way permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through indirect deterrence — when criminals are deterred by the mere threat of confronting an armed civilian. As Lott states, “By the very nature of these guns being concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether the victim is armed before they strike, thus raising criminals’ expected costs for committing many types of crimes.” If criminals perceive that the risk of encountering an armed civilian has increased, they will likely avoid that jurisdiction and choose a different venue for their illegal activities, or not commit the act at all. This requires that criminals are actually sensitive to the prevalence of guns in their environment, and are particularly aware of changes made to state legislation that could potentially influence the quantity of concealed carriers. Until recently, no studies had challenged these assumptions.

Research published last year by Dr. Fortunato of the University of California examined the feasibility of indirect deterrence by conducting a survey asking 1,000 citizens to estimate how many people (out of 1,000) carry a gun in their state. These responses were then cross-referenced with their state’s concealed carry policy (“may issue”, “shall issue”, or “no policy”) and the number of active permits in the state. The paper also controlled for other factors that may influence a population’s belief about the concentration of perceived concealed carriers, such as the depth of legal and illegal firearm market, measurements of state ideology, and rates of firearm violence.

The paper found no statistically significant relationship between a states’ concealed carry policy and people’s perception of the number of firearm carriers in their state. As Fortunato states: “Because beliefs over the distribution of firearm carriers are impervious to permitting policies and do not respond positively to the true distribution of carriers,” increasing the number of concealed carry permits in a state “cannot deter crime.” In other words, people cannot be deterred by the number of permit holders if, on average, people have no clue how prevalent those permits actually are. The paper goes on to concluded that by passing concealed carry laws — which likely increased gun ownership nationwide — “at best, we increase the probability of accidental discharge. At worst, these policies open the door for more violent, potentially deadly, escalations of altercations — altercations that may have ended peacefully if not for the presence of a firearm.”....

We don’t know what caused the big two decade drop in crime rates. We do know it wasn’t concealed carry.
So if concealed carry cannot be responsible for the significant, two decade drop in crime rates, what is? A report from the Brennan Center for Justice published earlier this year sought to tackle that question. Analyzing 40 years of data from all 50 states, the report examined a number of potential causal factors, including RTC laws, and found that the most likely causes were various demographic and socioeconomic factors, the end of the crack cocaine epidemic, and superior policing techniques. However, even these factors were insufficient to explain the entire crime decrease, and the authors concluded that we still don’t fully know why crime dropped precipitously.

But what we do know is that rigorous studies on RTC laws and permit holders, combined with empirical data on defensive gun use and studies of people’s perception of gun prevalence, provide powerful evidence that concealed carry does not reduce crime.​

This study was proven fraudulent Coyote. They only counted DGU's where someone got shot. The reality is the overwhelming majority of DGU's no gun is fired. Merely showing the weapon stops the crime. This was a particularly poor piece of propaganda.

 

[jc456]

I think what is important is that violent crime has had a downward trend since the 90's (and maybe longer) - there was a slight increase between 04-06, and a slight increase in 2015 - but the over all trend has been very positive - HUGELY (or shall I say YUGELY) down from the 90's. That's a fact.

The individual areas that still have high rates of crime do so for differing reasons and without addressing some of the underlying causes it will be hard to get them down.

well doing nothing for those areas for eight years certainly didn't help matters did it? But you loved the job obummer did. He did fking nothing

Again - he reduced the crime rate by almost half, looking at that chart.


WHY is is it so hard for you to credit him with anything?

again, he did nothing. conceal and carry passed at the state level did that. Stop trying to give him credit for state accomplishments. they're not his.

Coyote, I agree it's funny you try and give some sort of credit to the obummer dude. Funny as hell.

 

[jc456]

Cracking down on protests....are the rightwing THAT thinskinned they have to silence dissent?

No violence is acceptable. But free speech and protesting are an American right.

Cracking down on rioters, looters and violent "disrupters" ... not cracking down on free speech or protesting. Where did you get "cracking down on protests?"

I think it could very easily cross the line into cracking down on protests.

based on what? gives some fking precedence rather than your opinion of hate.

 

[Coyote]

What Caused the Two-Decade Dip in Crime Rates? Not ‘Good Guys with Guns.’

Defensive gun use is too rare for “good guys with guns” to significantly lower crime rates.
The first mechanism through which permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through direct deterrence, which occurs when an armed civilian uses a gun in self-defense, thereby stopping a crime. The NRA and gun advocates frequently tout surveys conducted by criminologist Gary Kleck indicating that there are around 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year, which would mean millions of criminals being directly deterred from crime.

However, widespread defensive gun use is a myth. The survey results used to extrapolate millions of DGUs suffer from a severe false positive problem and present crime prevention numbers that are mathematically impossible. In fact, as we have detailed in previous articles, not only is defensive gun use no more effective at preventing injury than taking no action at all during a crime, but the best empirical evidence to date from the Gun Violence Archive could also only find 1,600 verified DGUs in 2014. This means that 99.936 percent of Kleck’s claimed DGUs are nowhere to be found, despite those very surveys stating that more than 50 percent of DGUs are reported to the police (meaning there should be a record of them). With so few DGUs, it is not possible for permit holders and concealed carry laws to be reducing crime through direct deterrence.

People’s estimates of concealed carry rates are wildly off — so concealed carry can’t be indirectly deterring criminals, either.
The second way permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through indirect deterrence — when criminals are deterred by the mere threat of confronting an armed civilian. As Lott states, “By the very nature of these guns being concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether the victim is armed before they strike, thus raising criminals’ expected costs for committing many types of crimes.” If criminals perceive that the risk of encountering an armed civilian has increased, they will likely avoid that jurisdiction and choose a different venue for their illegal activities, or not commit the act at all. This requires that criminals are actually sensitive to the prevalence of guns in their environment, and are particularly aware of changes made to state legislation that could potentially influence the quantity of concealed carriers. Until recently, no studies had challenged these assumptions.

Research published last year by Dr. Fortunato of the University of California examined the feasibility of indirect deterrence by conducting a survey asking 1,000 citizens to estimate how many people (out of 1,000) carry a gun in their state. These responses were then cross-referenced with their state’s concealed carry policy (“may issue”, “shall issue”, or “no policy”) and the number of active permits in the state. The paper also controlled for other factors that may influence a population’s belief about the concentration of perceived concealed carriers, such as the depth of legal and illegal firearm market, measurements of state ideology, and rates of firearm violence.

The paper found no statistically significant relationship between a states’ concealed carry policy and people’s perception of the number of firearm carriers in their state. As Fortunato states: “Because beliefs over the distribution of firearm carriers are impervious to permitting policies and do not respond positively to the true distribution of carriers,” increasing the number of concealed carry permits in a state “cannot deter crime.” In other words, people cannot be deterred by the number of permit holders if, on average, people have no clue how prevalent those permits actually are. The paper goes on to concluded that by passing concealed carry laws — which likely increased gun ownership nationwide — “at best, we increase the probability of accidental discharge. At worst, these policies open the door for more violent, potentially deadly, escalations of altercations — altercations that may have ended peacefully if not for the presence of a firearm.”....

We don’t know what caused the big two decade drop in crime rates. We do know it wasn’t concealed carry.
So if concealed carry cannot be responsible for the significant, two decade drop in crime rates, what is? A report from the Brennan Center for Justice published earlier this year sought to tackle that question. Analyzing 40 years of data from all 50 states, the report examined a number of potential causal factors, including RTC laws, and found that the most likely causes were various demographic and socioeconomic factors, the end of the crack cocaine epidemic, and superior policing techniques. However, even these factors were insufficient to explain the entire crime decrease, and the authors concluded that we still don’t fully know why crime dropped precipitously.

But what we do know is that rigorous studies on RTC laws and permit holders, combined with empirical data on defensive gun use and studies of people’s perception of gun prevalence, provide powerful evidence that concealed carry does not reduce crime.​

This study was proven fraudulent Coyote. They only counted DGU's where someone got shot. The reality is the overwhelming majority of DGU's no gun is fired. Merely showing the weapon stops the crime. This was a particularly poor piece of propaganda.

There doesn't seem to be any correlation that it has effected crime rates however.

 

[Rustic]

That's funny.

Violent crime has been steadily decreasing and now stands at the lowest rate in over 25 years. I don't know what air you've been smelling.

Mostly because firearm ownership has skyrocketed, more firearms less crime… Fact

Until you shoot yourself

America’s Biggest Gun Problem Is Suicide

Suicide is the problem of the individual, has nothing to do with firearms… Fact