jakee

You have the document you linked to. You have the two documents I linked to. It shouldn't take much time.

It's pretty simple, someone just made it up. Everywhere it exists on the web links to that same CDC report (and often just plagiarises the entire paragraph with the link verbatim) that contains the same overall gun death stats, but does not so much as mention gangs, let alone put a number on their homicides. When stats from other government agencies like the one I linked already, or the ones found here on page 26, fig. 40 are so radically different there's no mystery in where it came from. Someone just made it up, the right wing echo chamber spread it around (the way they always do with made up claims they think sound good and assume their readers won't bother to check) and, true to form, people like Brent believed it without ever checking.

I never said you said that. I was very careful not to say you said that. You know I didn't say you said that, because you quoted the relevant part of my post where I very clearly said something different. Don't be that guy. Everyone hates that guy. You said, "remove the gangbangers and those trends reverse" - meaning you thought that without gangs the US gun murder rate would be lower than that of any comparable country. This is wrong, because gang violence does not account for the approximately 4/5 of US gun murders that you thought they did. Again, that's a lie that you were sold. Take away the 1/6 of gun murders that actually are gang related and the US still has a significant problem compared to other countries that you have not accounted for in your proposed solution. You see that, yes? Quibble? You think that changing from 9 of 11 to less than 2 of 11 is a quibble? For real? It reverses the relationship you thought existed between US non-gang gun violence and the gun violence of comparable countries. It torpedoes your assertion that you can solve the unique scale of the US gun violence problem by solving the gang problem. And frankly, it's just a massive, massive difference between the real numbers and the lie you believed. How do you expect to be taken seriously as a person who offers ideas and solutions based on data if you can see that the data you offered is wrong to such a staggering degree, but do not feel the need to even look at whether you need to change the conclusions you drew from that data?

But what about your confusion, Brent? You stated that the US didn't have to look at guns at all, because if you get rid of gangbangers you get rid of almost the entire gun murder problem. But you now know that statement was based on a lie you were fed - in reality the vast majority of gun murders have absolutely nothing to do with gangs and gangbangers. Are you revisiting any of your opinions based on this important new information?

Oakland, Richmond and San Fransisco are Democrat controlled at every level of government. The solutions that you say work are lefty solutions. Does this "“In Oakland, we’ve embraced the notion that we can’t arrest our way out of the gun violence epidemic,” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said in a statement. “Instead, we looked at who was actually most at risk of engaging in violence, and worked together as a community to open a new door for them.”" sound like something a lefty would have trouble with, or something a law and order righty would have trouble with? I mean, not arresting every criminal to reduce crime? Yeah, that's sounds like a familiar part of the Repblican manifesto. By the way, do you have any comment on the fact that your data was a lie? Any inclination to revise the opinions you espoused on the nature of America's problems that were based on that lie?

Perhaps now you know your argument is based on a fictional premise you'll understand why lefties struggle with it.

Where is the data? Nothing in that linked report breaks down total gun murders into any subclassification whatsoever. As far as I can tell some random person on the internet just lied to you and assumed you would never bother checking the report (Did you look at it, by the way?). Now here is some data from a government agency who actually have looked into gang violence, and they found that there were an average of about 1900 gang related murders total in both 2010 and 2011. That means there was an absolute minimum of 9100 non gang related gun murders per year at that time. Over 4 times as many as you thought, with the gang problem being less than a quarter the size. So Brenthutch, would you like to revisit any of the opinions you have just expressed on the nature of and solutions to America's unique murder problems?

Trump being in control means SHTF for Q? I thought they were supposed to be buddies? How do we test the validity of that prediction? What constitutes a lot of new information?

Oh, right. So you're saying that Trump being in control is Shit Hitting The Fan?

Right, and your message that you are heading towards armed insurrection and civil war because of the liberal deep state is far more optimistic.

Hey, what could be more optimistic than SHTF?

Having to define your beliefs with reference to what other people are against is the opposite of self assured. Is that a good thing? Honestly, it sounds as if you’re still too insecure to trust your own mind. Have your other beliefs not helped with that?

That’s an explanation of why you believe in Jesus, but why you believe in Q. Why are you so willing to be credulous?

Why? If he's provided proof, you can explain it. Why not? The military knows how to communicate just like everyone else. If they want people to know about it, why isn't it clear? If they don't want people to know about it, why are they sanctioning leakers? If Q exists, they are the DS.

I think you just explained the reason - self interest and the seriousness of the betrayal. In those various Parliamentary systems the ousting of a current leader brings the opportunity for power. Others within the party can put pressure on the PM to resign, or bring a no confidence vote within the party and force the selection of a new leader. This brings all sorts of options for cabinet posts and promotions even if you’re not in the running for the leadership. In the US the Presidency is separate from the legislature, has a set line of succession and a far more serious process for removing a sitting President. Therefore a revolt against the Pres brings no immediate opportunities for any other elected federal representative and cannot be achieved by any process internal to the party but only by impeachment - and to support that against your own Pres is more like treason against the party. In short, while a PM is a bit more like a first among equals, a Pres is a bit more like a temporary King. By no means a perfect analogy, but has a bit of that vibe.

Well hang on, your whole point is that people who campaign against racism are responsible for the continuation of racism. Now you seem offended at the suggestion that your stance is what actually enables racists. Do you see the problem there?

But if he turned himself into someone who didn't blame anti-racism protestors for the behaviour of racists, wouldn't he be better for it? I thought you should encourage that sort of personal growth in people, not warn them off it.

How much more concise do you need it? Racism hasn't ever gone away simply through being ignored, it has retreated when it has been forced to through confrontation. Do you think being on the receiving end of overt racism is inconsequential? Impartial with regards to what? I don't really see how that's relevant here. But that's rubbish, isn't it? And to be frank, a very small step away from victim blaming. White supremacist organisations have sophisticated and beguiling propaganda operations. They're vocal in their views and active in recruitment. People saying racism is bad doesn't embolden the racists - their racist mates telling how right they are to be racist is what emboldens them. The President being overtly racist on Twitter and TV emboldens them. Being able to hold their stupid parades and demonstrations with their Nazi friends without anyone else turning up to counter them would embolden them. Those are the problems. People who point out that racism is bad are not the problem. Why do you want racists to be emboldened?

He's owned his mistake regrds to Trump, but the underlying stance he was using his version of the Trump incident to justify remains exactly the same. Frankly, between not being aware of everything Trump said and thinking that the world can move past racism if we all just keep our heads down and be quiet when racist people do racist things, I think the second one is a much bigger mistake.

Again, why are you blaming SJWs for people being racist? How exactly is it the liberals' fault that Trump is saying racist stuff on Twitter? When in the history of the country has racism majorly declined because everyone else shut up and let the racists figure out their mistakes on their own? Was it Martin Luther King's famous 'I have nothing to say' speech?

Right, so you read one article and one quote, and from that decided to proclaim that the media was at fault for pushing their agenda instead of honestly reporting what Trump said, and that anti-racists are to blame for perpetuating racism. So now you realise you fucked up, does it change your opinion of the media too? Because they were being honest. Does it change your opinion of the people pointing out racism every day? Because it does still exist even in the White House. By the way, what is the middle ground beyond racism? How do you propose meeting the racists halfway? When the President is out there being so racist it draws glowing praise from prominent white nationalist leaders should we still be ignoring that so as not to be too divisive?

Jesus dude, don’t be so damn lazy. Could you not be bothered to read more than one paragraph of what he said? Trump specifically talked about those women coming from other countries with corrupt governments. If you take his words at face value he absolutely positively was not saying they should do a better job in the districts they were appointed in. At face value he was saying they should go back and fix the countries he erroneously assumes they came from, an assumption he made purely because they’re not white and he’s a racist.

Apparently you've missed the evidence of what the actual vote count was. Voting Americans wanted Hillary. The EC wanted Trump.

That's the best thing about it - the idea being the President and his anti-deepstate team are communicating honestly with the people, but they have to do it in secret code to stop their dem adversaries from finding out. But... it's not secret, the messages are posted in public and anyone with a search engine can find them. And they're not coded or cyphered, they're just basic riddles that anyone with a bit of time and inclination can decipher. So then what is the point of the 'Q' persona? And what is the point of the 'drop' format? Why isn't the President or his representative tweeting this information directly? Hilarious!

Oh sure, when you do it it's because you have a good reason. Not at all hypocritical