Cali's Assault Weapons ban declared unconstitutional

[CNCAppsJames]

The conservative in me wishes we could go back to those days of old when discussions were civil.

Unfortunately, when you have the Speaker of The House (Constitution hater Nancy Pelosi), on national TV, calling conservatives an "Enemy of the State" , the days of civility are definitely over. That statement.... that was a declaration of war and there will be no cease fire without without blood or an equally public apology.

[Tim Johnson]

That Brookings.edu piece was a waste of my time.

"Even more alarmingly, there is a clear correlation between Trump campaign events and incidents of prejudiced violence. FBI data show that since Trump's election there has been an anomalous spike in hate crimes concentrated in counties where Trump won by larger margins. It was the second-largest uptick in hate crimes in the 25 years for which data are available, second only to the spike after September 11, 2001. Though hate crimes are typically most frequent in the summer, in 2016 they peaked in the fourth quarter (October-December). This new, higher rate of hate crimes continued throughout 2017."

The hate crimes were mostly in the Democrat cities. Trump offered help for the cities but was refused by most if not all of them. Burning police and fire stations, looting and destroying stores was common in a lot of Democrat cities. It's amazing that Brookings.edu didn't mention that part. No it's not. The real hate crime criminals were the city leaders that allowed that to happen to their constituents.

[CNCAppsJames]

I'm beginning to believe that reality only makes brief appearances on this forum.

Are you willing to even consider the possibility as remote as it may be, that events are allowed to happen for the purposes of serving government or some other entity? Or do you believe there is no possible way that happens?

[CNCAppsJames]

That Brookings.edu piece was a waste of my time.

"Even more alarmingly, there is a clear correlation between Trump campaign events and incidents of prejudiced violence. FBI data show that since Trump's election there has been an anomalous spike in hate crimes concentrated in counties where Trump won by larger margins. It was the second-largest uptick in hate crimes in the 25 years for which data are available, second only to the spike after September 11, 2001. Though hate crimes are typically most frequent in the summer, in 2016 they peaked in the fourth quarter (October-December). This new, higher rate of hate crimes continued throughout 2017."

The hate crimes were mostly in the Democrat cities. Trump offered help for the cities but was refused by most if not all of them. Burning police and fire stations, looting and destroying stores was common in a lot of Democrat cities. It's amazing that Brookings.edu didn't mention that part. No it's not. The real hate crime criminals were the city leaders that allowed that to happen to their constituents.

Let's not forget that the definition of "Hate Crimes" is, shall we say fluid.

The analytical mind says says the majority of violent crime is a hate crime but alas, where's the narrative in that? I wonder if they subtracted Jussie Smollet's "assault" from those statistics?

[neurosis]

That Brookings.edu piece was a waste of my time.

There is a reason that they added " It would be naïve to think that data will change many individuals' minds on this topic, " to the first paragraph of the article.

[YoDoug]

The thing that I just don't agree with is that people would commit more hate crimes when a R is in office. It doesn't make sense from a motivation standpoint. You would think when their guy is in office they would be more content. I would expect more far right people to be more worked up now with Biden and expect a higher probability of them acting out.

[neurosis]

Let's not forget that the definition of "Hate Crimes" is, shall we say fluid.

I'd probably agree that what is considered hate speech is more fluid. Hate crimes? I'd have to see some examples.
 

[CNCAppsJames]

The thing that I just don't agree with is that people would commit more hate crimes when a R is in office. It doesn't make sense from a motivation standpoint. You would think when their guy is in office they would be more content. I would expect more far right people to be more worked up now with Biden and expect a higher probability of them acting out.

One would think. But where's the support for the narrative in that?

There is a reason that they added " It would be naïve to think that data will change many individuals' minds on this topic, " to the first paragraph of the article.

When one is engaging in propaganda, "data" supporting said propaganda is referenced. IOW, their position doesn't hold water so right off the bat they are coming in off the top ropes.

IF their position/data was everything they are purporting it to be, in the very beginning of the article they would state something to the effect that in 20xx, the methods in which Hate Crime statistics are gathered/calculated changed so that must be considered when forming an opinion one way or another.

What the article does NOT state (which is CRUCIAL to understanding the scope of the data) is that the FBI overhauled its data collection process when nearly two-fifths of police agencies failed to participate in 2021's voluntary reporting process. Some states don't even require their agencies to aggressively report or collect data on hate crimes. Want to show there is "more" hate crime? Report more.

I'm not saying there is more, or less hate crime. I don't think ANYONE can beyond a shadow of a doubt offer an accurate assessment of that statement due to the incompleteness of the data. For once the garbage heap known as the Southern Poverty Law Center said something truthful/accurate they criticized the FBI's data as "grievously incomplete".

The truth is we just don't know and to make broad societal changes based on "grieviously incomplete" data is not only irresponsible, it's downright dangerous given the highly charged nature of the incidents in question.

Fact: we are a nation of 350,000,000+ people.
Fact: there are about 8 categories the Census Bureau fits us all into.
Fact: ethnic strife is not a uniquely american trait.
Fact: the beatings will continue until morale improves.

[mowens]

Are you willing to even consider the possibility as remote as it may be, that events are allowed to happen for the purposes of serving government or some other entity? Or do you believe there is no possible way that happens?

Well, firstly, my comment wasn't aimed specifically at you.

Second, the question is a little too vague for me to be able to answer cogently.

I do believe that both political parties are equally to blame for the mess we are in.

I believe that "for the good of the people" is way down on the list of priorities when government (of any party) makes policy decisions. Behind power, money and weakening my political opponents, at least.

I don't believe that Hamas would need the CIA's help to infiltrate the southern border.
I don't believe covid vaccines are an attempt by the government to control people, other than trying to get them to give as much money as possible to drug companies.


You know, BTK was a successful serial killer not because he was smart but because he was so stupid. Everything he did was completely random. As proven by the fact that he was caught because he asked the police if they could trace a computer disc and believed them when they told him no.

I think that's a good analogy for our government.

I have seen our local city government do some of the most boneheaded things and think no one would notice. I see the corruption that certain local politicians are susceptible to. And I see the low opinion that government has on the intelligence of the average citizen. And these are the people that move on to state or national government.

I guess in the end it doesn't matter if it's conspiracy or incompetence. The result is the same.

[CNCAppsJames]

I'd probably agree that what is considered hate speech is more fluid. Hate crimes? I'd have to see some examples.

Is the "amount" of data compiled from one year to another not fluid enough?

For example let's take the number of reporting agencies in the 2022 statistical sample; 14,631. 2021's number of reporting agencies had 1,499 (10%) fewer. That fact is quite relevant when considering the sweeping statements being made such as "violent crime is decreasing and 'hate crimes' are increasing". The way they are parsing the data is fluid AF.

[CNCAppsJames]

Well, firstly, my comment wasn't aimed specifically at you.

I didn't necessarily think it was, I was just asking an earnest question. Many (not necessarily you) do not believe that could ever happen. I just like to know where people fall.

[mowens]

I didn't necessarily think it was, I was just asking an earnest question. Many (not necessarily you) do not believe that could ever happen. I just like to know where people fall.

I guess you could call me a cynic. 

[CNCAppsJames]

I guess in the end it doesn't matter if it's conspiracy or incompetence. The result is the same.

That's a pretty fair assessment I'd say.

In terms of prevalence in government, I gotta say, I think incompetence wins hands down. I mean, seriously... take a stroll into California's DMV to see government "in action". There's no question IMNSHO what goes on there is the rule rather than the exception.

Having just moved to a different state, I got to see some different government at work. While it's not perfect here (because no place is), however, it is a VAST improvement. The differences between Utah and California are STARK! And I'm probably understating it.

[neurosis]

When one is engaging in propaganda,

You're probably the first person I've ever seen say that the brookings institute pushes propaganda pieces, but ok.    They're typically not quoted because they are one of the few that criticizes both sides of politics and in todays world, that's just suicide. Join a team or else (right Incog?)

I have some criticisms about the article too, but I don't see it as being propaganda. They aren't the first to discuss Trumps racist rhetoric but I'd guess that you think anyone who does is a propagandist? 

I haven't listened to the podcast they wrote the article about but I'll probably listen to it some time this weekend.

[neurosis]

Is the "amount" of data compiled from one year to another not fluid enough?

No.  I'd have to see each case and see what is being reported as a hate crime. We're talking about what is considered to be a hate crime being fluid?