Being a Canadian colours my view, but it seems there is at least some parallels between race relations up here and in the US. The difference is up here is it's aboriginal/white as opposed to black/white.

I don't know how close the parallels are, but in Canada it is statistically accurate to observe the following:
-Aboriginal people are disproportionately the victims of violent crime
-Aboriginal people are disproportionately committing violent crime
-Aboriginal people are over-represented in the prison system
-Living conditions on Aboriginal reserves even compared to neighbouring municipalities are, on average, grossly worse

These are basic facts that are, statistically speaking, irrefutable.

There facts clearly indicate there is a problem in society. Unless you believe that race determines criminality, they indicate that a group of people is facing some kind of systematic disadvantage, currently, historically or both.

Canada has failed in trying to address this issue IMO. Instead of looking for the systematic problems, we are trying to treat the symptoms. For example, we have passed laws that demand differential sentencing to be more lenient towards convicted criminals if they are of aboriginal back ground.

What we really need is to discuss the root issues. If you grow up on a reserve or in a terrible neihgbourhood, that matters. If the likelyhood of growing up in those places is still racially distributed, that's a major root cause that needs addressing above all others.

Look north up here to Canada. Section 718.2(e) of our criminal code:
all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

Call it my white male privilege but I don't accept the SJW definitions of racism and instead go by the dictionary definition:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

That is to say, differential treatment based solely on race is racist. In Canada, we still have racist laws as part of our legal code. The fact it's purpose is try and help a minority doesn't change the fact it is still a racist law. Personally, I hold to this crazy notion that racism is still wrong. In theory this specific law was meant to offset the disproportionate imprisonment of aboriginal people in our justice system. In practice though, violent crimes are most often not random and are inflicted on people known to the assailant. So, in practice this has meant less prison time for aboriginal defenders, but it's also meant that aboriginal victims see their attackers typically getting lighter sentencing as well.

Racism is wrong, but you are mistaken to say that the far left doesn't itself indulge in it's own forms of racism. You don't have to google long to find far left SJW's declaring that only white people can be racist and only males can be sexist...

You did not listen? How could you have heard anything? Main stream media swayed its followers into a false bliss of an easy sure thing Clinton win.


The other 1/2 of the county listen to facts. no pay increase in years, insurance premiums hikes, illegals being send back time and time again, some even committing violent crimes and zero, zilch happens to them. Jobs leaving the country left and right. Buying power of the dollar diminishing. Falsely reported employment rate and low job creation of any presidency.

And then you have all the Hillary shit.


But hey its over. The people have spoken, A historic landslide. A mandate from the people showing their disgrace towards the political establishment.

I wasn't pedantic, I was being helpful and providing links to interesting data! You're welcome!

None of the data from Grieves' work was in the video, except possibly the word twice. A quote from a press release, which might become part of the abstract, was in the video, with a useful little highlighty thing which probably wasn't in the press report. If I tell you, here and now, that there's a study showing that longer prison sentence are an ineffective deterrent to violent crime, that research isn't 'in my post.'

Very good points.

I agree that good firearm regulations should make it harder for suicidal people to get a weapon. Also, I agree that the unanticipated drop in firearm suicides is definite good outcome in Australia.

...But I'm still hesitant to use suicide rates as any sort of primary motivation for new gun control in the US. Statistically tracked, sure. But to me there is a very big difference between using a gun for violent crime against others, and a suicidal person using a gun to off themselves. A difference that needs to be clearly delineated in any statistics shown to promote (or disparage) any sort of gun control legislation.

Let's get this straight. There's clearly a huge problem with racism in the police in the US. It's probably not even a conscious thing on the part of the officers. Study after study has shown that even other black people are more likely to fire on a black suspect than a white one.

The problem is larger than the police, it's cultural. I read a great quote the other day:

When a black man is killed, the media publishes his criminal record. When a white girl is raped, the media publishes her rapist's swim times.

The culture in the US needs to change. Unfortunately, it's heading in the wrong direction right now, as anyone who saw Trump's acceptance speech can attest to.

BUT ...

Treating all cops as killers and racists is no better than treating all black people as criminals. The cops that do this should face the full weight of the law, as should anyone within any ethnic group committing crime (particularly violent crime).

But tarring an entire group because of the actions of it's worst members is the exact same logic that racists use.

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

Does the Bible reduce empathy? Lots of violence.

Actually, kids cause violence because they're kids. And not just any kids, but males. Male teens are responsible for almost 90 percent of violent crimes.

Knives are just as deadly as guns, guns simply allow you to kill people quicker. Of course, I consider a knife to be an actual knife, 3.5 inches or greater and not a simple pen knife.

As far as the statistic, I simply typed in Google something along the equivalent of "Number of violent crimes by country per capita". That was literally one of the first results. The per capita is important because obviously the greater population will skew the stats otherwise. The fact is that crime is going to happen as long as underlying social issues remain unfixed. What weapon you are hurt or killed with really doesn't matter.

Yes, that article was pretty silly, repeatedly quoting the study claiming the UK has the most violence based on the fact that they consider an argument a violent crime even when there's been no injury, but compare it to other countries where no crime is reported unless there's hospitalization. Just note, in the year studied, the UK had a total of 921 murders, compared to 14,831 in the US that year...but yeah, the UK is the more violent country, far more violent than the US or South Africa.
WHAT?!?

Would you like to have a 2% chance of being mugged at knife-point/punched or a 1.5% chance of mugged at gunpoint? I'll go with the knife/fist as i'm in pretty good shape to run away. Thank god we have a chance of surviving our violent crimes.

A very carefully cherry-picked statistic from the journalistic equivalent of the u-bend in your toilet, the Daily Fail. If you're going to post something to support your argument, don't go for the right wing gutter press - go for something more neutral that use facts over hysteria, such as a statistics office or charity group.

I think you're missing the point. I propose that we execute anyone that poses a threat to the general public. That means anyone who commits a violent crime (or threatens to commit a violent crime) regardless of their mental state. People who are mentally ill tend to be less predictable (making them a greater threat in general) but the punishment should be the same regardless. You stab someone, you are executed. You threaten to stab someone, you are executed. You attempt to stab someone, you are executed.

As for being a janitor, most people don't want to clean toilets or mop floors even if they get paid to do so. It's a last resort when nothing better is available. If you took a survey of janitors and asked how many would rather have a different job even if it paid the same, I'm pretty sure most say that they want a different job. Janitors are definitely a necessity and I appreciate their work but I would never want to actually be one myself.

I don't know if the right's stance on gun control is the hypocrisy I'd point out about their so called "pro-life" stance, but I'll get to the hypocrisy in a moment.

It is odd how after every mass shooting here, which means we get to hear it a lot, the political right always jumps on the "oh no, they are trying to take our guns away", "if guns kill people, why don't they try to ban cars which kill more people" and other memes when nobody is talking about banning guns or forcing everyone to register all the guns they own, let alone take guns away. Closing the gun show loophole (and all such laws proposed that would close it still left open the ability to pass guns to family members without a license or registration), allow the CDC to track gun violence... these aren't unreasonable requests. Even exempting the gun industry from the same liability laws we hold nearly every other industry to (with a huge notable exception to fracking... hmm... another one the right loves) seems fairly reasonable, though I guess I can semi see the concerns... of course said concerns go back to the fact that nearly anyone can get a gun quickly and easily. 30+ homicides a day, 50+ gun related suicides every day, 40+ accidental deaths every day, hundreds treated for gun assault injuries every day, thousands of crimes committed at gun point from rape to robbery and burglary, and the list goes on and on... I support one's right to own guns, including hand guns, but we need to admit there is a gun violence problem. And it isn't a heart problem, if Cain had a gun he'd have used a gun, a rock is what was available to him at the supposed moment of action. And it isn't a lack of Jesus problem as over 78% of people in the US general population and other far more democratic, first word, advanced economy, fully free will, countries like the Netherlands have far more Atheists than us, but have far less gun violence... less violence overall. It's not a video game problem, as those games are popular outside the US, and again no correlative rise in violence. (And yes, the UK violence rate is higher, but it isn't an apples for apples correlation, they define far more things into their national violent crime rates than we do, when all things are equaled out, they have a much smaller one.) So it's time that the right just admit there is an issue with guns and violence in this country.

But as I said, we don't need to point to the rights stance on guns to prove they aren't actually pro-life. Just point to the fact they are the ones who are most in support of the death penalty. Just point to the fact they are the most pro-war and are the loudest war hawks, despite the fact Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" I guess they figure that means forcing everyone to the US's will, since somehow God anointed the US with special privilege above all other nations (after all the Bible mentions the eagle rising against the bear, which must be the US rising against the Soviets). Point out that they support stand your ground, somebody taking your nice new TV, stand your ground and turn that crime into a death penalty there in your home... of course Jesus said if somebody takes your coat to give your shirt too, not that I'm sure He was meaning to freely let people take all your stuff, but I can guarantee He wouldn't have been pro-stand your ground. They don't support having guaranteed affordable health care, or having government assistance for the needy and the poor. Apparently that life only matters while in the womb, the quality of life after that doesn't matter, and if they can make it worse for the child then they don't care, so long as their taxes don't help the child.

They aren't by any stretch of the imagination pro-life. They are anti-abortion. I think abortion is far from ideal, and should be a last option. The best option is the same thing that the women not having abortions have, affordable health care. Access to contraceptive options like IUDs (which don't stop fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus which they try to claim) and the pill... and it doesn't matter if the pill itself is cheap, the doctor visit to get them and follow ups need to be affordable too... somehow the right really likes to blame women and hold them accountable for the pregnancy, when in fact it's the guy who should be blamed. If they don't want a pregnancy, then he should wrap it as soon as it comes out of the pants. No playing "just the tip" or anything else like that. Then dispose of properly, and ideally, don't rely on it as the sole method of birth control. So guarantee all people, including women, access to affordable health care. Give them their free choice of birth control and I'd say encourage the use of the IUD which has an amazingly low failure rate compared to other birth control methods... that is if she's going to use a contraceptive on her end. Don't make it a crime to have a miscarriage... which is some of the most asinine law proposals ever created... and rape is rape, no such thing as "legitimate" rape, I don't care if the Bible is into punishing women for being rape victims (a virgin not betrothed has to marry the rapist and he has to pay her father 50 shackles of silver for the father's loss or property and the couple may never divorce, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 or if she's in a city and betrothed then she has to be put to death Deuteronomy 22:23-24, a passage defended because it says "because she cried not", but how often do people ignore crimes or say they didn't see anything, heck people film others raping a passed out girl, so "because she cried not" is a poor excuse).

TLDR: The right are far from being pro-life far beyond gun control, they support war, they support the death penalty, they support stand your ground, they are against the government helping the needy and the poor, and are against a truly affordable health care policy that would largely eliminate the need for abortions in the first place.

This video is a bit misleading. Very few kids here in Japan travel completely alone to school unless they live in very rural areas (and even then, they probably go with older siblings). As you see later in the clip, most kids go to school together with friends in small groups, at a minimum a pair but sometimes in huge groups. In my neighborhood, at around 8:45 in the morning, you can see virtually the entire local elementary school walking together towards the public school. They might not be under direct adult supervision, but they are rarely alone and there is always an adult nearby because people are usually commuting to work on the same roads/trains that the kids are using to get to school.

And like they said, the reason this can happen is that violent crimes against children such as kidnapping are almost non-existent here. Adults are far more likely to end up missing/dead here. Contrast that with Western countries like the U.S. or Australia and it quickly becomes apparent why people are escorting or bussing their kids to school in those countries.

I will say that there is a negative side to the "independence" they are touting in this video, which is that these same children often run completely free after school with zero adult supervision. Some of them can get a little wild (throwing rocks at passing cars and stuff or making way too much noise in a crowded residential area) but the cultural attitude here is that it's just "kids being kids," although I sometimes suspect that's code for "we don't want to actually have to parent our kids unless someone forces us to."

Closer to the truth would be to assume this (or some other physical abuse) happens at least 3-5 times a day in every major metropolitan area, not once per day in all the US. 9 out of 10 aren't caught on camera...and 9 out of 10 of those that are caught on camera are erased by the perpetrators themselves (the cops). It's only when a private citizen records them and doesn't get arrested themselves (and have the recording destroyed) that we see these videos , and that's multiple times a day (yes, we've seen exactly that happen repeatedly, destruction of video, often recorded by another, unseen citizen that comes to light after the cops lie about the incident.).

When a group commits violent crimes every single day without fail, and those in the group who are not being violent stand behind those that are, then this IS the norm, not an outlier. Sorry.

No, doing your job doesn't erase evil violent acts....neither does committing a 'good' act. If it worked that way, we wouldn't need jails, because nearly 100% of criminals have also done good things in their life, if that erased their crime there would be no need for cops at all. EDIT: Even doing 'good' 10 times as much as you do 'evil' makes you evil, not good, in my eyes. 100 good deeds do not erase one evil deed.

This is not the actions of a few, it's the actions of many, perhaps even the actions of the majority of officers, with the backing of ALL other officers and the force itself. That makes them ALL complicit, with the exception of the tiny, statistically insignificant few that actually report their fellow officers...and they get driven off the force by the majority of other officers that won't stand for 'snitching' by harassing, stalking, threatening, attacking, and not backing them up when they're in danger doing their job.

If ANY other group of people did the kinds of crimes cops have been caught on tape doing just this year alone, we would outlaw that group, seize their assets with RICO, and put most of them in jail. When cops do it, at best they usually get a paid vacation and a pat on the back.