Venandi

Unfortunately crime stats do tend to be politically motivated and it's only when you look at the collection parameters that you see how it came about, what the motive was and how easily the data was manipulated. The "domestic crime gun" thing is a case in point only because it was so blatant. I still can't believe they thought no one would notice. The rise in domestic violence in Canada (that I mentioned above) obviously included the covid lockdown period. Even though the lockdown was an instrument of Liberal public policy, I still wouldn't hold Justin accountable for the violent actions of other individuals, that's on them. As I read it, it didn't sound like Trump was saying domestic violence isn't a crime, he was observing that every domestic dispute doesn't include violence and it doesn't end with a felony arrest. I think it's safe to say the majority of such calls fall into that category and are deescalated successfully at the scene. I don't care enough to look up those stats though as I doubt it would matter to you anyway. So be it indeed...

Is Trump responsible for that though? If so, it's worth noting that over all, domestic violence in Canada showed an increase of 19% between 2014 and 2022. During the same period (when broken down by category), domestic sexual assaults have increased 153% and physical assaults have increased 14%. Personally, I wouldn't suggest the increase is attributable to Justin... but clearly your milage might vary.

The other forum wiseman says: "Just because you agree with something doesn't make it "THE TRUTH." Duh"

Seems to me he was talking about "crime statistics" here. He was (IMO anyway) suggesting that how they are collected, compiled and released (in different jurisdictions) has an impact on the perceived efficacy of any policing effort. In terms of "domestic responses," how many of the total number of responses result in an actual arrest for an actual crime? Many are resolved on scene with a "be kind to each other and don't make us come back" salutation as members depart. When data collection methods are modified it's usually deliberate and it's usually intended to make a political point and the collection methods rarely receive the scrutiny they deserve. So, counting responses where no arrest is made as "crimes" tends to falsely skew statistics. My favourite example was the machinations surrounding "domestically sourced crime guns" in Canada. If it was truly a domestically sourced gun it was counted as such and that's fair enough. But in order to pad the numbers, untraceable guns which were clearly (and illegally) imported from the US and any other untraceable weapon from any source (ghost guns, 3d printed etc) were included in the "domestically sourced" numbers whether they were actually sourced in Canada or not. In addition, if a legally owned gun in Canada was present (but not involved) in an indictable offence on the premises, it was immediately deemed as a "domestically sourced crime gun" simply because it was there. So, If your neighbour punched your drunk uncle at the new years eve party and the police were called then POOF... your entire collection of guns were immediately deemed to be domestically sourced crime guns. That pushed the total up to about 84% (if memory serves)... it was deliberate, it was politically motivated,. and it was completely bogus. I'm not saying that's the case here... I don't actually know, based on the context though I think that's what he's getting at. The fact that you interpret it as him saying "beating your wife isn't a crime" doesn't ring true IMO.

Maybe I missed it... but if Trump was deflecting the actions of a politically motivated assassin in any way that tended to defend or rationalized either the murder or the murderers motives then yes, I would consider that every bit as bad as what you've been doing right here as a nobody. Being concerned about the effect of inflammatory rhetoric on fringe elements that dwell at the extreme ends (either side) of the line diagram is wise though, defending and rationalizing their actions isn't, unless you seek to provoke more partisan violence... then it makes perfect sense. Trouble is, it's far easier to do that than it is to reach a united and bipartisan compromise. Selection and maintenance of the aim, unity of command, and maintenance of morale are all principles of warfare, they apply equally well to politics. At this point in time, you're either trying to reduce the see-saw's amplitude so everyone can dismount safely or you're increasing it with the intent of throwing the people opposite you over the playground fence. When the latter becomes SOP for both sides, election cycles become prone to extreme political violence because both sides have potentially sooooooo much to lose. Proceed to Crazy Island if you wish, but from what I've seen of the world I don't think you'll like it there.

Yes... but your logic isn't logical, and I think you know that. You were simply trying to make a point and frankly, it was so badly made that I'm surprised at the number of responses you actually got. That police academy entrance exam didn't go so well... right?

There is no you guys, no desperation and no intent to fuel anything. When bagpipes are the only thing stolen I'd likely assume it was a neighbour who hated bagpipes as opposed to a bagpipe lover who wanted him to play more. Clearly your milage differs...

It's likely because no one (except you) would ever have assumed that he (the shooter) was a wild eyed MAGAT who only shot Kirk because he "just wasn't conservative enough." In addition, the FBI released the casing engravings pretty early on... that might have served as a clue about the motive and political ideology. In any case, there aren't enough past examples of that happening (in either liberal or conservative circles) for it to qualify as the motive of first thought. It's usually a hate related crime and sometimes it qualifies as domestic terrorism due to the political component behind the motive. You jumped to that conclusion pretty quickly... do you have a list of such occurrences (he wasn't liberal or conservative enough) to draw from that would warrant it being the motive that came first to mind? Just curious... if you plan to answer with something completely and blatantly partisan please pass me by.

Are you suggesting that it's a form of mental illness then? If so, I'd tend to agree, I don't think the "identify with" caveat should apply to such things as those seeking amputations because they identify with amputees or surgical eye removal because they identify with the blind either. Logically, if you support the idea of gender reassignment surgery for minors you should support that as well. Otherwise, as a wise man once said: "You keep demonstrating YOU KNOW NOTHING about SCIENCE." - Does a Playboy Bunny become a rabbit and need to hide during hunting season simply because she wears bunny ears, a bunny tail and actually identifies as a "Bunny" on her resume?" - Can I self identify as a native woman and hunt deer anytime I want? If not why? - Can I rejoin the military after retirement age because I indetify as 25 years old? If not why? If you can extend your train of logic to the end of the tracks I might buy into your theory... Otherwise, as you've previously said: "Thanks for confirming you STILL GOT BUPKIS LMAO."

Indeed, and a huge issue IMO as well. The people violently acting on hateful rhetoric always represent the outer fringes of the left/right line diagram and often the people who incited their antics defend, deflect and rationalize the resulting violence. As it continues and gains momentum, the small fringe element on the left side of the diagram moves right... and the right one moves left... each encompassing more and more of its representative side of the line. Like violence associated with cattle stealing in Africa, it tends to escalate in tit for tat reprisals with each side blaming the other for its initial onset and each attending escalation. There always seem s to be an unsavoury (at least IMO) aspect of perverse enjoyment in it as well, and you see it here with threads that run out to 25 pages on a single sentiment that logical people (working together) could have resolved in under 5 posts. The "turning point" (IMO again) occurs when people stop trying to achieve compromise. And since compromise is a key component of democracy, polarization becomes the political football of choice for partisan gain. In turn, that creates a situation where people begin to have legitimate fears about the outcome of any election that that doesn't go their way. As the see-saw amplitude increases, they accept bad behaviour on the part of "their guy" because the "other guy" promises to be even worse (in their eyes). Then POOF... when people truly do have real and legitimate fears about election outcomes political violence can become a threat to all. If/when it happens, the usual question (after it's too late) is "how did we get here?" There's always the danger that the weapon of choice goes from bolt action 30.06 rifles to car bombs too, at that point, the flame can become self sustaining and discussions about gun control efforts become the sort of political arguments that only took place in the good old days. It's potentially a pretty dark path... I marvel at the appetitive for it in advance of the meal arriving and how quickly it evaporites after the first plate is served.

Have you considered that you may be the cause of all that shrieking and impotency?

The fool I've been quoting says: Post EVIDENCE if YOU CAN.……………

Here's another mouthful of your own crap to chew on: Too bad you've FAILED to make ANY CASE for ^YOUR OPINIONS, AS USUAL. LMAO

Hoax or not, it appears the media is still reporting it and the quotes are pretty specific: “Hey fascist! Catch!” said the engraving on one of the shell casing police recovered. On another shell casing the words “Bella Ciao,” the title of an anti-fascist Italian fight song, was engraved. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-stop-calling-people-nazi-or-fascist-because-you-dont-like-their-politics?itm_source=index What ever the motive actually turns out to be the part that still concerns me is the apparent lack of bipartisan condemnation and the way it breaks down based on political persuasion. The idea that he (or anyone else) either deserves to be executed because of their opinion or that somehow the opinion itself makes the shooters motive "understandable" should be abhorrent to any rational person. Even in a politically charged environment (like this forum for instance) I would have expected the take away to be (near) universal condemnation. The absence of it now leads me to wonder what comes next... is it a sense of horror across the board and the resolve to do better, or does it serve as a catalyst for future reprisals in equal and opposite manner? The former takes courage, conviction and effort, the latter appeals to base human instinct and is relatively easy to conjure with minimal effort (memes, slogans, inflamed them vs us rhetoric etc). Political and religious violence has a self sustaining aspect to it, once ignited the flame continues to burn as long as fuel is present.... I can't help but wonder if this event will be seen (in hind sight) as a source of ignition or a turning point. All IMO of course... guess we'll see.

Why the constant sexual references? Has Robo proven disappointing or is the 1979 in your screen name the display on your last weigh in?

Oh right she exclaims hopefully. It was the FBI that said that...who knows though, they've certainly lied before and with your blessings. You and Robo still dating or did he run off with Herb?

I'm wondering if you ever get tired of arguing with yourself and eating your own shi%. Here's another mouthful, chew slowly and enjoy... Too bad you have NO REAL ARGUMENTS with which to dispute what I post and have ONLY RESORT to ^ad hominems.

There ya go Roboturd... go ahead and find one you snivelling weasel.

Fear not, the mentally challenged critter I've been quoting has more words of wisdom for you: ^YOUR OPINIONS don't make ME WRONG, lDIOT.

The moronic poster I've been quoting has this to say about that: Why do you keep believing you have answers and then display your complete IGNORANCE?

That's exactly why DEI hiring and promotions are a bad idea. Do you really believe that black people (as a for instance) are unable to compete based solely on competence and ability. Some of them actually find all of this DEI stuff personally insulting. They see it as something that tends to diminish their own worth and almost invariably, the very people who feel that way are the high achievers who don't need it. Only the people who lack those competencies (from what I've seen in the military) tend to defend the concept of DEI at all. There are only two Combat Control Officers (CCOs) I've come across who I deeply admire and fondly remember with the utmost respect ... both were black, both were outstanding leaders under pressure and although I never thought to ask, I bet both of them are opposed to the DEI nonsense you seem to think they need. Please be assured that they don't and never did.

Nonsense.... but let's assume for the moment it's all true. Please explain how that makes his execution (somehow) OK, or understandable, tolerable, acceptable, justifiable or defendable in any way, shape or form on any level? While I think provocations are unwise, polarizing and even potentially dangerous when absorbed by weak minded fools like Robo, the person poking the bear certainly isn't guilty of anything that comes remotely close to being punishable by summary execution. Try this: find any politically motivated assassination in the US that MAGATs (right here on this forum) are unwilling to condemn without caveat or inclusions. Please feel free to centre me out on it because I can't think of a single one I wouldn't be willing to condemn out of hand. There are places in the world where freedom of speech actually does come with a death sentence and after perusing some of the posts here it occurs to me that authors (such as yourself) have never been there. The deflections and justifications over what he said, how he said it, or vacant ideas that somehow it was a 30.06 bolt action rifle that did the killing all ring pretty hollow to anyone over the age of 12. The reason I know that is because I asked my granddaughter. The only thing worse IMO is cheap Robo hot air bluster and name calling; it impresses no one, it intimidates no one and it convinces NO ONE of anything. Even though I despise bullies, I would defend Robo's right to say what he wants even if what he says qualifies as a personal attack at a personal level resplendent with grade 3 level insults. That's simple rudeness and it's not the same as true hate speech, uttering threats or inciting violence against any person or identifiable group... we have laws to cover that and let me capitalize the important concept here and the entire point of this post.... IT ISN"T A CAPITAL OFFENCE WORTHY OF EXECUTION. As soon as freedom of speech doesn't extend to things you find offensive (or things you disagree with), then freedom of speech ceases to exist and we all become the poorer for it.

Here fool.... eat a few more of your own words: "Lashing out at me just demonstrates you can't handle the truth."

Of course they have legitimate grievances... I've said that all along. But you don't go door to door in genocide mode killing and raping every person you come upon to address them. Take your "you people" reference and stick it up your a$$. Were done fool.

Well in that case you'll probably appreciate this quote because I think the author nailed it.... pay attention to capitalized words As I said previously...you are an lDIOT and IGNORAMUS.