https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states?fbclid=IwY2xjawM3nKlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvPkwMYlT4W3UsiptLVyWQY3Vmxi4VESQsrtE4NeIvD4iTSbw322YhAkc1Bk_aem_VeNnv5P8xfg-1Wjm9Skhew
I saw this piece elsewhere and thought it was interesting, although not in the way that others might think.
"Eighty-three percent of those murdered since 1975 were killed by the 9/11 terrorists (Figure 1). Those murdered since 2020 account for just 2 percent. Terrorists inspired by Islamist ideology are responsible for 87 percent of those murdered in attacks on US soil since 1975 (Table 1)."
Based on this, we could cut deaths by "terrorism" by EIGHTY SEVEN PERCENT by just focusing on Muslims. Yet the left opposed focusing on Muslims, and is actually supportive of Muslims. Instead the ASPL focuses on "right wing terrorism" which constitutes 11% of the alleged "terrorism".
It seems fair to note that these "terrorism" deaths are .35% of ALL murders, and "right wing terrorism" deaths are 11% of the .35%. So, the left is obsessed with a tiny number of deaths in the grand scheme of things.
Much like the ASPL obsession with "assault rifles" when crimes with ALL rifles are make up a small fraction of crimes.
Much like the inclusion of suicides in the stats on gun violence.
Much like ignoring the fact that data tells us how easy it would be to reduce crime by @75080%.
The ASPL is focusing on numbers massaged to support their narratives, and ignoring things they find inconvenient. We know, from the data, that violent crime is largely concentrated in urban areas, which are overwhelmingly controlled by the DFL, and often have more stringent gun laws than less urban areas. Strangely enough, these are also the areas where we see DA's and police departments downgrading felonies to misdemeanors, and much more of a revolving door for repeat offenders.
It would be interesting if just one large urban area was controlled by the GOP and applied data driven approaches to reducing crime so we could actually do some real life comparison.
6 comments:
The fascist said:
Based on this, we could cut deaths by "terrorism" by EIGHTY SEVEN PERCENT by just focusing on Muslims.
HOLY SHIT. Well, yeah, you COULD, if you didn't give a damned about human rights, liberties and justice for all.
I mean, hell, we could solve 99% of violent crime by locking up all males (I don't know the exact number, to be clear). But that would be a human rights atrocity.
We who believe in freedom and justice and basic human rights and decency do NOT blame an entire group of people for the actions of a tiny portion of them.
What the hell?
I do so love it when you admit that you've lost by starting out with slander, and lies.
It's impressive how you've completely missed the point of this post to indulge in slander and name calling. But the goal isn't to "reduce" crime, violence, or "terrorism" is it? It's clearly about ignoring the data and pretending like "right wing extremists" are the biggest threat, when the very data you reported demonstrates otherwise.
I'll simply note that if they took the data back to the '60s the swing to the left would be significant, they also seemed to ignore the billions of dollars in damage caused by riots.occupations by left wing groups. Without the methodology and when the time frame is manipulated to generate a certain narrative, your data is flawed.
The reality is that we could easily cut all crime by over 75% with absolutely no problems, but the ASPL isn't interested in losing the talking point.
Hell, Trump demonstrated how easy it is to drastically cut crime, clean up trash, and do some minor repairs and maintenance, which the (non elites) in DC seem very happy about,
Beginning and ending with lies and slander, not a good look.
When we can determine with precision who the most criminal/violent are, then we can pretend that profiling is a bad thing. When we can determine with precision those from muslim majority countries who are truly peaceful people seeking to live in a place where they can live peacefully in harmony with the people of that place, then we can pretend profiling is a bad thing.
I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: if I'm tasked with protecting my own, as is the government of this nation, I will continue to put the safety of my own over and above any desire I might have to never be accused of racism, discrimination, nationalism, or xenophobia. It's not my problem that a demographic has proven itself to be more violent or criminal than others. It's there's and so long as they do nothing to address the problems within their own demographic, then all within it have no legitimate foundation for criticizing how they're regarded by everyone else. It's sad for them. Truly. But sadder still would I be to have to live with the harm suffered by my own because I pretended everyone is just like my own.
Absolutely. We can 100% reduce crime by paying closer attention to the demographics who commit the most crimes. It's not rocket science. Fortunately for us, the demographic that commits the majority of crimes is repeat offenders.
I've said before that I am increasingly convinced that much of the problems caused my Muslims can be narrowed down by country rather than religion. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that the child rapes in the UK are overwhelmingly committed by Pakistanis and Afghanis. I think that focusing on countries first will accomplish quite a bit. But that's just me.
I can accept that as a potentially effective plan. More than that is that we must begin somewhere in some way and that'll do until a better option comes to mind. I'm still good with denying entry to any, but we do know that most of the more violent muslims come from specific places in the Middle East and Africa.
Japan, I believe it is, has very strict policy which denies the most threatening from entering or becoming citizens. They don't get much criticism for it, but who cares if it makes their country a safer place in which to live.
Again, much like the crime statistics in general, we know where the problem children come from in the Islamic world and why would we not focus on the worst of the worst first.
I think that we are seeing a situation where some of the more westernized Muslim countries have understood how better to assimilate, while the less westernized countries bring their shitty culture along for the ride.
Post a Comment