-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
22
MILFs, Mates, and Mary Jane — Just a Typical Pattaya Evening
I Never touch any girl over 21 so 40 is like a grandma to me. Do they still have have pussy hair? Or has it all fallen out by then? 40 years old! Blimey! Was it for a bet with your mate? -
100
Report Thai Student's Attack in NY Highlights Safety Concerns
Another data dump. It looks impressive, but doesn't support your claim. I suppose you think that if you throw up all sorts of references, people will think you are so smart and accept your biased claims? Let's look at some of the links; Safewise: It shows that some of the most "dangerous" cities are in Republican states. For example, Memphis, TN, Lubbock, TX, Little Rock, AR. Citing the bogeyman of California doesn't work out either, because the high crime city of Bakersfield, CA has a non partisan mayor, neither republican, nor Republican and anyone who knows the region knows that it leans Republican. Buck Owens and his Buckaroos came from there. Using your logic, one could say that because of the high number of republican voters, the violence is a result. Of course this would be an incorrect interpretation, but so too are your attempts to blame democrat mayors for local crime rates. https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-year-end-2024-update/ Certainly does not support your claim. It states; Examining trends over a longer timeframe, most violent crimes are at or below levels seen in 2019, the year prior to the onset of the COVID pandemic and racial justice protests of 2020. There were 6% fewer homicides in the study cities in 2024 than in 2019. Similarly, sexual assault (-26%), domestic violence (-11%), and robbery (-19%) were lower in 2024 than in 2019. In contrast, aggravated assaults (+4%), gun assaults (+5%), and carjackings (+25%) were higher in 2024 than in 2019. Violent crime rates ha If violent crime is reducing, your claim is not supported. The Pew research you refer to does not support your claims either. Did you read it? Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%). It’s not possible to calculate the change in the rape rate during this period because the FBI revised its definition of the offense in 2013. The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property crime rate between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates of burglary (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) and motor vehicle theft (-53%). Using the BJS statistics, the declines in the violent and property crime rates are even steeper than those captured in the FBI data. Per BJS, the U.S. violent and property crime rates each fell 71% between 1993 and 2022. Now you have gone from pushing the false claim that Democrat mayors are responsible for high crime rates, to blaming the "ruling party" . Fine. However, the highest rates of violent crime are in republican controlled states. It goes hand in hand with their rates of child poverty, and low levels of education. Maybe there is a link between poverty, few educational opportunities and violent crime? You can't even be truthful when you refer to Proposition 47 in California. It was a citizen initiative, passed by referendum. That means it is something the electorate wanted. The proposition was needed to address prison overcrowding, and to reduce the high cost of incarcerating nonviolent crimes. The state taxpayers had a choice, spend billions more on putting people in prison, or try and divert these people to less expensive programs. The reality is that since most shoplifting cases involved amounts under $400, the proposition did not change prosecutions after the change in the threshold. The reason why so many stores backed off from interfering with shoplifters was due to litigation. Juries were awarding large settlements to shoplifters who were injured when security took them down. Bystanders were suing because of collateral damage and for things like emotional distress. Employees were claiming for large amounts when they were injured taking down shoplifters. Those juries were made up of people just like you, sticking it to the "man". You cannot even be truthful when referring to California AB 1333. Personal defense and the "Castle Doctrine" is untouched. Someone breaks into a home, and presents a threat and the occupant who kills, still retains the right of defense. The change is being sought to prevent violent criminals from engaging in shootouts in public spaces, and using self defence as a justification. It is intended to address nutcases who provoke confrontations and fights and then claim self-defense when they do harm. It happens in road rage where a person harasses other drivers and then attempts to shoot that person. it happens in gang wars when gang members engage in shoot outs in shopping malls. It makes clear that there is a duty to avoid violence in public spaces, with the goal of preventing injury to bystanders when people start firing off their guns. The NRA is opposed to the change. In effect, all that you have done is to regurgitate extreme right wing political crap. -
24
He's NUTS...
So Biden didnt flamed for his actions and mistakes? Are you for real? George W bush, Obama and Clinton got flamed for whatever they did. Are you 19 years old or newborn, short memory? Or somerhing ? -
65
Trump "Winning" thread
But he chose to go into politics instead of investing his dad's money! WINNER! He won against women to become POTUS in the USA..Winner!!! Wealth isn't everything! He dropped ginormous bombs on Iran! WINNER... -
490
Trump's crackdown on LA protests is pure hypocrisy
Everybody and their uncle is obsessed with Trump. By far he's the hottest ticket in every town. W/O Trump there ain't no WINNING. lol -
65
Trump "Winning" thread
Trump MAGA WINNING comes easy when you love your country.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts