Best criminology books according to redditors
We found 308 Reddit comments discussing the best criminology books. We ranked the 145 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 308 Reddit comments discussing the best criminology books. We ranked the 145 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Rep. Beto O'Rourke wrote a book on ending the drug war. It is available for sale on Amazon
Dealing Death and Drugs: The Big Business of Dope in the U.S. and Mexico
/r/Beto_for_Senate
I've seen a handful of people say that this sort of academic content is only produced (or acceptable to produce) about white men. I'd like to note that cultural, anthropological and historical studies of specific demographics, especially groups of alienated men, are actually pretty common. Take this classic study about Kashmiri Jihadists, or this one about drug dealers in East Harlem or hell, this study of the changing mores and social expectations in samurai culture. In other words, studying the identity of a group of men who are finding their social status threatened, uncertain or rapidly changing is actually quite a common academic pursuit.
In academic contexts like this there are clear epistemological and ethical considerations to keep in mind. The first is that any study of a group of people, whoever they are, needs to engage with the voices, experiences and worldviews of those people in good faith. This doesn't mean agree with, or even have an overall positive view of them or their beliefs - see the studies about Kashmiri Jihadists or drug dealers above - but it does mean that the purpose should be to reach a kind of understanding of the way these people think and feel about their world. A course that talks about the experiences of white men, with an aim at looking at processes of anger or radicalisation, would almost certainly be approaching the issue from this angle. I don't see anything to indicate that this won't be the case.
From the responses I've seen, a lot of people imagine this course to basically be a semester long dunk-session on white dudes without any nuance. From where I stand it seems pretty clear this course is intended to deconstruct, understand and talk about the experiences and alienation of certain white men in the US and UK in the last 70 years.
I think, in 2019, most Westerners with eyeballs have realised that young white men are a demographic that is noticeably prone to radicalisation, extremism and alienation. I think it's inevitable that this will be a phenomenon that is increasingly discussed and researched in academic and public circles.
You could show them the Fair Sentencing Act which was to re-mediate the damages of sentencing laws for possession of crack versus possession of cocaine. This issue was both heavily race and class based.
> In the three decades prior to the passing of the Fair Sentencing Act, those who were arrested for possessing crack cocaine faced much more severe penalties than those in possession of powder cocaine. While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, a person holding powder cocaine could receive the same sentence only if he or she held five hundred grams. Similarly, those carrying ten grams of crack cocaine faced a ten-year mandatory sentence, while possession of one thousand grams of powder cocaine was required for the same sentence to be imposed.
In the book Ain't No Makin' It, Jay Macleod reveals how his study participants were more inclined to do crime or not had a lot of impact on whether family members or people within their in-groups had been to jail or not. This doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with the overall question, but it's an important qualitative aspect that needs considered when thinking about how we view inter-generational crime. It's kind of analogous to how economists have found the representative trend is children earn about the same amount the families they are born into[1] [2]. All in all, the idea is: families pass on skills they've accrued to their own offspring - aka if you're from a wealthy family you pass on ins and outs of not doing crime (or doing white collar crime). If you're from a poorer, crime background family you pass on ins and outs of doing crime.
important detail that isn't opaque
There is The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander where she went into her research completely against the idea that there is still a racial caste system in the U.S. The most prominent things she discovered were court cases that upheld random street or bus searches where police harassed (on a daily basis) poor or/and communities of color. Another one is that prisoners count as 3/5ths a person for a lot of census counts. Further from that is that many prisons are being built and located continually further and further away from communities.
There is On The Run by Alice Goffman who conducts ethnographic research on poor, black subjects she tutored and how they conducted their everyday lives, from criminal to non-criminal, and why they were so active in learning to run from law enforcement (as well as teach youth how to).
Note: Idk if tutor is the right word here, light verbatim
I'll address a glaring issue on how the legal system works both structurally and socially: Have you ever texted while driving? Have you were drank underage? Have you ever been suspended in school? Etc etc - depending on who you are, where you live, your race, class, and a myriad of other things impacts the reportability scale. The likelihood that an authority figure is apt to instruct you not to do something or access the system to punish you. Like with the Fair Sentencing Act, another dimension of the crack versus cocaine dynamic was that people who could afford powder cocaine was they were giving lesser sentences and less likely to be reported (aka let go). The biggest take from this is: the legal system works differently both on a structural level and on a social level. For many people who exit prisons, they are still treated as pariahs even though they've "paid their debt to society."
There's also a dialogue on why Prohibition of heroin, marijuana, and alcohol had a lot of racial tones to it. I can't remember my research sources off the top of my head, but I remember during my studies how political slogans and people would speak out during attempts to get the Harrison Act passed that heroin, "inflames the negro to rape" and marijuana was something that made the Mexican immigrant lazy. Interesting note: white, rural women were more likely to use heroin as noted by documents of them being admitted for treatment (before it being outlawed), doctors using heroin on them for treatment, and individual diaries.
All in all, there is a lot to consider. I'll leave with this: given the circumstances and plight of PoC in the U.S., we should think about why they commit crime or why certain things they do [or people think they do] are disproportionally outlawed? As well as a broader question, what is a crime? What makes something or someone criminal?
Yes we do need to focus on the immediate problem. What if we didn't just throw around ideas that sound good in theory but actually tried evidence-based solutions that have been proven to work in other cities? Like focused deterrence or "safe streets"
P.s. stop-and-frisk sounds good to some but there's no evidence that it works. All it does is make minorities feel like cops are out to get them. NYC dropped it by 97% after it was declared unconstitutional and crime went down. Surprisingly - or maybe not so surprisingly - the evidence-based stuff that seems to work also seems to be the stuff that involves treating people like rational human beings and trying to understand the reasons behind their choices (i.e. stealing a gun b/c you're afraid someone wants to shoot you first) and working to change those incentives (i.e. coming up with ways to disrupt the social dynamics of retaliation), rather than ideas that assume, either explicitly or implicitly, that criminals are just evil people that need more 'justice system' thrown at them.
2009: Beto O’Rourke, as a city council member, fighting against threats from the Democrats (!) and calls for Congress to debate drug legalization - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/drug-legalization-debate_n_157798
In 2011 Beto O'Rourke wrote a book about the war on drugs and its effects on violence - Dealing Death and Drugs: The Big Business of Dope in the U.S. and Mexico
It was the reason he ran against the long-term Democratic incumbent for the House seat.
Watch the first 5 minutes of this video of him being interview by Ryan Grim about how Beto changed the political calculus in how Democrats treat drug policy and discussion about legalization: https://youtu.be/mnZ8y0q2C5Q (...watch the whole video to learn about how Beto was one of the earliest Congressmen to refuse PAC money and how he has rallied against corporate influence in elections)
Watch his Ted Talk from 2016 where he spoke about how marijuana prohibition is racist in its origin (and has ties to El Paso): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXbFZoSMbZI
Beto has been fighting for this topic long before it was the popular thing to do.
As Michelle Alexander wrote in her excellent book, 'The New Jim Crow', the Drug War and the Prison Industrial Complex are the new tools of institutional racism. The drug war vastly and disproportionately affects black and Latino peeps.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1501260235
Hes not
Recent research has leaned towards the "some level of racial bias" in sentencing argument. You've already noted one source: Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences by Starr and Rehavi (2014). I would also add the Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices by the US Sentencing Commission (2010). They make the following observations:
Note that these studies tackle sentencing length and not prosecution and conviction rates (or the likelihood of being sentenced). Your original article "There Is No Evidence of Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System" mostly talks about prosecution and conviction rates in its "Criminal Justice Literature" section.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any research that asserts racial bias in prosecution and conviction rates. I'm inclined to believe the author's non-discrimination argument here.
However, this discussion rests on the assumption that laws are racially fair to begin with. It is possible for police officers and judges to fairly enforce laws with disporportionate effects, and have racially baised effects. Michelle Alexander argues this point in her book The New Jim Crow (2010) and characterizes the modern justice system as one that is facially "race-neutral" but ends up targeting African-American males anyways. Check out this previous /r/AskSocialScience thread for more info.
P.S. The original author of your post makes several references to "president-elect Obama", which implies they wrote it in late-2008. If this is true, then that means their post predates everything I've mentioned above.
I know what you mean, but it's not only a possible excuse, it's also one of the factual causes. When your whole world tells you that education and a job aren't an option, that crime is your destiny, it's extremely hard to choose a different path.
This book opened my eyes on the issue. The author isn't blind to the moral side of things but set out to describe a bad neighborhood in detail. It's a great but depressing read.
Haldeman's personal diary, 1994 article in the New York Times.
Ehrlichman's 1995 interview with author Dan Baum, author of "Smoke and Mirrors: The war on drugs and the politics of failure".
How does this article quote Dan Baum, but not name the entire book he wrote on the topic, Smoke and Mirrors. The Washington Post still hosts the first chapter of the book which is a good synopsis of the the whole thing.
Nixon didn't give a shit about "criminalizing negroes (to use the term of the day) or hippies" per se. Rather, the boogeyman of "drugs" triggered images of hippies and black Americans in the minds of the voters that the Nixon campaign wanted to sway to them away from the more progressive Democratic candidate.
Akin to the famous Lee Atwater quote, they didn't want to scream, "N@@@er! N@@@er! N@@@er!", rather they used the specter of "the dangers of drugs" to call up images of inner city street hustlers (aka black men) and hippies in the minds of the white suburban voters they wanted to scare into voting for the conservative candidate.
The ploy worked astoundingly well, unfortunately. But once Nixon won, he found that drug laws were overwhelmingly in the hands of the states, not the federal government, so he pulled some "big government" shit and made the "war on drugs" a federal issue, including the creation of the DEA.
And it's been stupidly downhill from there.
> You start to break that cycle by letting James have a decent house to raise his family instead of a desperate life that might lead him to self medicate and perpetuate history.
It's not, unfortunately, this simple. As you pointed out, James was born to a heroin addict mother. His IQ is 93, he dropped out of school at the age of 15, and he wasn't doing particularly fantastic in school before then. He wears clothes the way the rest of the people on the street do, his speech is heavily slurred, and he has hard time doing basic skills like showing up on time to keep even the most trivial job. When they nab him for pot at 18, they have to prosecute because he is breaking the terms of his plea deal for the previous violation, and the public defender does not have time for him.
This is a good book to read: https://www.amazon.com/Run-Fugitive-Fieldwork-Encounters-Discoveries/dp/022613671X
It is written by a person who deeply sympathizes with the people in poor black communities, but does expose life there like it is. It is eye opening.
Like the other guy said, if you don’t know, then maybe you weren’t supposed to relate. I’m white and even I could understand where killmonger was coming from, from what I know from movies and music. If you really want to learn about what him and others like went through though, then read this
It’s even based in Oakland. Maybe you won’t suddenly relate, but at least you’d understand.
Everything is on facebook as the other person said.
I like Pete too, but I'll take this opportunity to point out some reasons I like Beto more, if you don't mind.
and here's a list of sponsored bills
conserving 7000 acres of public land (sponsored by Beto)
Repealing some portions of the Patriot Act
and cosponsoring a bill to repeal much more of it, although it didn't pass
Sponsoring a bill to reduce wait times for Veteran's claims (it was incorporated into another bill)
and many more bills about veterans and immigration. In addition to the RIGHTS Act he will also be able to point to many other liberal bills he sponsored that didn't become law. He'll be able to say that he's been fighting the good fight.
This is something Pete can't say and an advantage he doesn't have, because he was never in the federal government. I know he has his own local accomplishments, but they are local, and they didn't involve wrangling with Congress, which I believe is a very important skill.
Positives of Pete over Beto: I think his education and his military experience is very impressive, but neither necessarily would make him a great president. He is also younger by 10 years, but that doesn't really mean much to me. Good luck to both of them though.
Rep. Beto O'Rourke wrote a book on legalizing marijuana that's available for sale on Amazon....
Dealing Death and Drugs: The Big Business of Dope in the U.S. and Mexico.
I had a super in-depth response written out but my phone crashed and I lost it. I'm furious!!!
This is my forté. As already answered there is no specific taskforce. In London (Met Police) they have Operation Trident to deal with the gangs and gun activity.
I know mostly about Liverpool and Manchester gangs if you have any Qs I'll try and answer
Good books to read are -
Young Guns https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/190385492X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_zOPtzb497V4WA
One Blood: Inside Britain's Gang Culture https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1849839018/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_hPPtzb0ZK3BY1
Street Boys: 7 Kids. 1 Estate. No Way Out. A True Story. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0007267061/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_YPPtzbHMSGZNJ
Gang War: The Inside Story of the Manchester Gangs (more from the history side as it stops around 2003
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1903854296/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_iTPtzb0PDBZHB
Shooters (Manchester) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1908479000/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_hUPtzbRT664CE
I believe it is a quote from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Smoke-Mirrors-Drugs-Politics-Failure/dp/0316084468
I wish I knew the page number for you, but I do not have the time to pull it up.
Enjoy (If you happen to speak German). If not you're going to have to get the English translation off Amazon.
Wake up
https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Online-Due-Diligence-Investigations/dp/1889150614/
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Online-Public-Records-Researchers/dp/1889150622/
Or anything else written by Cynthia Hetherington
https://www.amazon.com/Surveillance-Concept-Art-Eddie-Cruz-ebook/dp/B06Y1B9858/
​
Anything by Kelly Riddle
​
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Conducting-Private-Investigations-Investigator-ebook/dp/B077QRNSLF/
​
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Intelligence-Techniques-Information/dp/1984201573/
False. It's just that black serial killers don't make the news as much because their victims are also mostly black. And therefore don't count.
For my Intro to Cultural Anthropology class last semester we read an ethnography called "In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in the Barrio" by Philippe Bourgois. It was an interesting read, very captivating and real. I really liked it.
To maintain a prisoner class of society.
Urban communities of color are over-policed, and our sentences for almost everything are too harsh. I know, I know, this sounds like liberal SJW party line talk, but the facts bear it out.
The US has the highest rate of incarceration on the planet (and by far a higher rate of incarceration than any industrialized/European country we view as our social peers). If you start parsing out demographics, black and latino Americans have incarceration rates that somewhere around 10x any comparable nation. I'm talking gulag/apartheid level incarceration rates for these subgroups. (Sorry for the lack of figures throughout this post, but it's too much work to bust out the books each time. In general, these figures are what I remember from Crime and Public Policy). To me, the most convincing piece of evidence is the disparity between arrest rates for drug use of adolescents by race. White and black teenagers use at about the same rate, but black teenagers are arrested far more frequently. Are black teenagers made safer by that higher arrest rate? Are white teenagers made worse off by their lower drug arrest rate?
I think the answer (on aggregate) is a resounding no on both counts. That's over policing right there, where fewer contacts results in better outcomes.
So what do we get from this? We lock people up for far longer than any of our peer nations do for similar crimes (the common anecdote here is a life sentence in the UK is only 15 years) and for far longer than we did historically (again, anecdotal but look at some of the sentences in an old crim law casebook. I'm talking 7 years for 2nd degree murder). Yet, we also have a middling to high rate of crime (particularly homicide). Either American's are particularly criminal, particularly insensitive to incarceration, or other nations have a better system (i.e., one that achieves better/comparable results with less incarceration). That's what I mean by draconian charging; we could have less incarceration and the same or better crime rates with the right system. And these excessive sentences create other problems as well, such as giving prosecutors disproportionate power to dictate punishment.
So where can we trace these phenomena to? The explosion of inner-city crime from the 1960's to the 1990's. This unprecedented level of violence and crime caused an overreaction of law and order, so this is where we start getting 10-25 year sentences for possession of drugs. Just think about that, we are penalizing simple possession more harshly than most of sister nations do for murder. This escalation in drug sentencing caused an escalation in everything else, because once you're getting heavy sentences for mere possession it seems weird to give out a lighter sentence for manslaughter or assault. The concentration of violence in the inner cities (the cause of which is still up for debate, see When the Work Disappears or Don't Shoot or even lead) means that we concentrate these harsh sentences on on inner-city residents who are primarily minorities.
Finally, if you have any interest in this area at all, read "When Brute Force Fails" by Kleiman. It's only like 80 pages, but it lays out the theory and the basic stats for why our current system should be considered to over-police but under-protect.
Surely you're aware that the average "gun enthusiast" is more trained than the average law enforcement official, and also less likely to break the law (police are 23x times more likely to break the law than a concealed carrier)? See 1 and 2.
During the last study that was done (1993), Police were also more likely (1200x more likely) to accidentally shoot someone than a concealed carrier. See 3.
1: http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/
2: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493644/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-3993670-7898564
3: http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/
No, I mean specifically black serial killers, not gang killings.
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Black-Serial-Killer-Documenting/dp/1475012802
In Search of Respect is a good way to understand how this happens. An anthropologist goes to East Harlem to study crack dealers in the 90's.
Yeah, joining gangs isn't something most of these kids would do if it wasn't a necessary part of life for them. This book does an incredible job explaining the issue.
Sleepyslim gets upvoted for knowing his history. If you want a good account of the Drug War from ~1977 to ~2000, read this book.
Funny you say that, because Beto agrees. He literally wrote a book about it.
More Guns, Less Crime
Every single "person with similar views as nolimitsoldier" I have encountered has always fallen into 1 of the following groups.
To learn more about feminism you can read or watch the following websites,books, or videos:
Youtube Videos or Channels:
Websites/Blogs:
Books:
He even wrote a book on the subject.
Introduction to Conducting Private Investigations: Private Investigator Entry Level (02E) (2018 Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077QRNSLF/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_YF5MAb21PV9DS
Just read ethnographies on a subject or group that interests you.
One of my favorites in college was [In Search of Respect(]http://www.amazon.com/Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis-Sciences/dp/0521017114). Philippe Bourgeois was studying crack dealers in El Barrio (a mostly Hispanic are of New York City also called Spanish Harlem). It's a very good ethnography because it is objective, showing how social capital and other phenomena play a role in keeping the crack dealers from "going legit," yet it does not make apologies for the sometimes obscene things they do to other human beings.
Thunder Rides a Black Horse is about a traditional Mescalero coming of age ceremony for women.
Life and Death on Mt Everest is an intimate look at the experienced Sherpas who aid mountain climbers as they tackle the world's tallest mountain.
There are ethnographies all over the place on just about every culture you could ask for. Just do a google search on something that interests you and use the keyword "ethnography" in your search. You're bound to come up with something.
https://www.amazon.com/Tough-Target-Street-Smart-Guide-Staying/dp/0788169092
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis-Sciences/dp/0521017114/ref=la_B001IGHNIW_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368699663&sr=1-1 this is a VERY intresting book about an anthropologist who studied crack dealers, its pretty cool.
Not only that, he literally “wrote the book” on it back in 2011. You can buy it on Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Black-Serial-Killer-Documenting/dp/1475012802
You could also look at this book.
Or the book Serial Murderers and Their Victims. But I doubt you really give a shit.
>Do you have any ideas as to how I can quantify the influence of the Wire outside of the United States? Beyond the fact that it is universally acclaimed?
There was a half-hour special HBO released before the premiere of season 5, and it included some background on the show, as well as interviews with the cast and creators. (I think it was either called The Wire Odyssey or The Wire: The Last Word, in case that helps.) I expect this would be available as a DVD and/or Blu-ray extra, too.
Anyway, Robert Wisdom, who played Colvin, mentioned that the show had a really devoted following amongst people in some Caribbean country with its own history of drug trafficking and its attendant violence. (Jamaica, perhaps? I forget.) People had taped the show and shared those tapes over and over, and they personally told Wisdom how important that story was to them. The stories about Baltimore and its civic dysfunction really resonated there, even though so much of the context was specific to the deindustrialization of large American cities.
This might give you an entry point into how The Wire was received elsewhere. Another way might be to see how The Wire has influenced shows that followed. There are some American examples which didn't try to replicate The Wire, but they were clearly inspired by that show's refusal to dumb things down for its audience. For me, it's hard to imagine a show like Breaking Bad without understanding some of the vocabulary of The Wire. And although it's a very different show, you can see the attempt to pay attention to details in something like The Good Wife, for example. It's probably one of the best shows to depict computing and technology accurately, especially in the context of the law, at least until something like Mr. Robot.
There's The Wire's influence on international TV, too. For example, consider something like European series The Last Panthers or, to a lesser extent, the Italian mafia series Gomorrah. (I'm personally less familiar with the latter, in full disclosure.) These are bleak shows with wider scopes than typical law enforcement shows, and it's clear that they owe a debt to the storytelling ambition The Wire demonstrated. The Last Panthers, in particular, is set in at least four different countries, and it shows how war leads to crime, and how criminals are pursued by law enforcement continent-wide.
To the extent your professor is interested in controversy generated by The Wire, I'm not sure how much you'll find in the context of critical disagreement over the show's reputation as a TV series. There's some controversy in Baltimore itself, where elected city leaders in particular complained about how the show's depiction of Baltimore was so negative. You might have more luck if you look into some of the policy ideas advanced by the show or its creators, whether directly of implicitly. In particular, consider [Colvin's attempt to partially legalize the drug trade via Hamsterdam](/spoiler "Season 3"). As I understand it, that season may have inspired some real-life copycats in law enforcement^([citation needed]), though most of the references I'd heard were American rather than international. I know there'd also been complaints that some real-life criminals began emulating techniques shown on The Wire in terms of evading law enforcement: using burner phones, using only pagers and payphones, encoding their communications, etc.
There's also the body of commentary by the show's creators. David Simon, in particular, has been incredibly critical of The War on Drugs. His analysis of that is certainly controversial—e.g., openly advocating jury nullification for drug crimes—though that may fall beyond the scope of the show itself and the show's influence. You can also consider The Wire to provide an important context for some arguments in print and documentary films. I imagine that it's easier to understand the thesis behind something like Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, Baltimore native Ta-Nehisi Coates' "The Case for Reparations", or the documentary The House I Live In, which includes interviews with David Simon. (This is different from How to Make Money Selling Drugs, another 2012 documentary interviewing Simon on the same topic.) It also provides a context for real-world events like the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and the subsequent riots, as well as the Black Lives Matter movement more generally. BLM is certainly controversial.
I imagine that The Wire may have contributed to the civic conversation which led to the state-level legalization of marijuana in states like Colorado—but it also explains the instability of local legalization efforts when there are still federal anti-marijuana laws, to say nothing of federal anti-money laundering laws which further complicate statewide legalization efforts. (E.g., "legal" marijuana dispensaries in places like Colorado can't use banks because that would be a federal felony under money laundering laws.) A lot of this has only indirect relevance to The Wire itself, but it might give you a starting point.
I wish I had more useful suggestions for the influence the show has had internationally. In any event, good luck on your project!
> marijuana legalization
I saw that Booker got some headlines because he just endorsed legalization. Beto's consistently been a proponent and literally wrote a book about it back in 2011.
All of these also apply to alcohol, not just the first point, except that alcohol is also physically addictive and causes social harms that cannabis does not - so aside from 'cultural' reasons, why is alcohol still legal? Are illegal drugs in general illegal because of the harm they do to our bodies and society, or for another reason?
Here are a list of titles that are not 'VICE' articles that I can recommend to you if you are genuinely interested in learning more about the topic of drug prohibition (they are all quite compelling in my view, you can check the credentials of the authors if you want):
Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs by Johann Hari
Drugs - Without the Hot Air: Minimising the Harms of Legal and Illegal Drugs by David Nutt
The Legalization of Drugs (For and Against) by Douglas N. Husak.
The War on Drugs: A Failed Experiment by Paula Mallea
I can recommend more titles if you like, but I think these are the easiest to digest.
> Either black people are predisposed to committing more violence or their media/culture is disproportionately influencing them. Which is it?
This is clearly a false dichotomy, as the other commenter offered another alternative, namely socioeconomic status.
>Even if what you say is true, then why aren't white kids out committing the same levels of violence as their black counterparts?
This further hurts your narrative -- the whole point being that whites as a race enjoy a higher prestige and socioeconomic status than black people. It's almost as if their higher SES allows them to get away easier with comparable transgressions! For example, consider the number of drug crimes committed amongst races compared to the number of arrests. Check out Part 1 of this source for some thorough breakdowns.
Relevant sections:
>>Although the majority of those who shared, sold,
or transferred serious drugs17 in Seattle are white (indeed seventy percent of the general Seattle population is white), almost two-thirds (64.2%) of drug arrestees are black. The racially disproportionate drug arrests result from the police department’s emphasis on the outdoor drug market in the racially diverse
downtown area of the city, its lack of attention to other outdoor markets that are predominantly white, and its emphasis on crack. Three-quarters of the drug arrests were crack-related even though only an estimated one-third of the city’s drug transactions involved crack. [...]
>>The researchers could not find a “racially neutral” explanation for the police prioritization of the downtown drug markets and crack. The focus on crack offenders, for example, did not appear to be a function of the frequency of crack transactions compared to other drugs, public safety or public health concerns, crime rates, or citizen complaints. [...]
>>The racial dynamics reflected in Seattle’s current drug law enforcement
priorities are long-standing and can be found across the country. Indeed, they
provided the impetus for the “war on drugs” that began in the mid-1980s.
You said:
>Many other races, and ethnicities, and people have faced economic hardship and have lifted themselves out of it.
In the US? No other racial or ethnic minority has experienced consistent, lawful, systematic subjugation to the extent that black people have faced, full stop. You might try to counter this by bringing up Asians, for example. You might offer: Asian people are by many accounts more successful than whites, and the Chinese in places like San Francisco were for a long time used as slave labor! And many Asians were interned during WWII! So clearly it's the blacks' faults that they can't get out of their situation in the same way as Asians!
But this is a false analogy. The examples of internment or physical subjugation of Asians are temporally constrained compared to blacks. Asians have never been a part of the system of chattel slavery followed by legally enforced discrimination in the form of Jim Crow laws.
It is abundantly clear that the continuing issues of black people, poverty, and crime in the US hinges on so much more than just black people "refusing to come to the table" on this, "playing the victim/racism card", or the rest of society "not holding them accountable".
If you'd like some good reading material, there's a book called The New Jim Crow that documents the modern racial caste system implemented by the US' war on drugs and the US prison system.
speaking of "prey/not prey", I have to recommend Tough Target by J Bittenbinder. It's the best self-protection book I've ever read. You can't change Ns but you can be a tough target for them. :D
edit formatting
In Rise of the Black Serial Killers: Documenting a Startling Trend, Justin Cottrell expels the myth that serial killers in America are predominately white. On the contrary after sifting through a myriad of newspaper records and books, he's compiled a list of murderers that is equal too or greater than the number of white serial killers from 1860 to present. Few if any have ever heard any of their names or stories, until now.
Based on his findings white serial killers have been underrepresented throughout American history when compared to the percentage of the population they represent by a factor of 1.79 on average.
On the other hand, black serial killers have been overrepresented 2.68 to 7 times their portion of the population, with a 150 year average of 4.18.
Another startling trend he uncovered is black serial killers have never represented less than 26.83% of the number of serial killers in a given decade, despite their overall percentage of the population never exceeding 13.1%. This trend has steadily increased to the point that in our current decade they represent 88.24% of the number of serial killers apprehended since 2010, yet only account for 12.6% of the populace.
Aside from trends, this book offers reasons most people assume black serial killers don't exist--from the media prohibition on the subject, to general misunderstandings. Coupled with this is a look into the various factors that breed serial killers, with a look into why black serial killers are on the rise, while white serial killers are on the decline.
To prove his research is valid, a full list of every black serial killer is provided, along with a brief description of their crimes. In addition to this the biographies of 35 of these killers are given, with detailed information about their crimes.
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Black-Serial-Killer-Documenting/dp/1475012802
_____
Black Serial/Mass/Spree Killer List:
> I am male, and to cut a long story short, yes i am 'particularly masculine' by the usual metrics.
Ah right, well this is all very easy for you to say then, isn't it? Strikes me you are talking from a position of privilege in that respect.
> Can you answer the part about who your favourite articles were to teach on? I'm quite curious!
I have no idea why that would be. What possible difference could it make to you? It sounds to me like you are testing me.
Anyway, if you really want to read some sociology, here are a few suggestions...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intimacy-Personal-Relationships-Modern-Societies/dp/0745615740
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Managed-Heart-Commercialization-Human-Feeling/dp/0520272943
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldization
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis-Sciences/dp/0521017114
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish
I will try and add some more if I think of anything, but TBH I think you are just trying to test me anyway. For some reason redditors often seem to be incredulous that someone could actually do a sociology degree and a post-grad, and go on to work in teaching, though it is actually a pretty humble accomplishment AFAIAC.
Edit: one of my favourite sociology books when I was an undergrad was Scotland the Brand.
In Search of Respect is often used in modern cultural anthropology classes as a first hand look at the culture and life of drug dealers and associated characters. It's a bit dry in some points, but it's pretty detailed. The author depicts things sort of 'from the ground up', as he slowly gains the trust of the neighborhood, and access to more influential figures in the trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rape+culture
Or here - my partner was a Women's Studies minor, and she has this book on the shelf from one of her classes...
Are you familiar, by any chance, with the first rule of holes?
About culture? Anthropology may be the area you want to check out. It's a very complex topic, but has loads of interesting reports on marginalized cultures within America. The Navajo probably have had a few ethnographies already done for them.
One of my favorite that you may find interesting is In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Oddly, it really reminded me of where I grew up.
I'm a former Texas CRMer (F32). It really will depend on what your project is and where it's located. Certain parts of Texas are very dry and others are incredibly humid.
If you can afford it before your first paycheck, I would definitely invest in a 2-3 lt hydration bladder to use in your LL Bean backpack (3 lt is better). As demosthenes83 said, you can use it later once you get a new pack. I love my camelback bladders because of the warranty, but you can pick up an off-brand at Walmart or Amazon for cheap. Depending on your project you'll be refilling this when you stop at the truck for lunch.
I would upgrade your boots as soon as you can. Especially if you'll be doing surveys. You can't work if you have an injury due to inadequate footwear. Budget around $100-$150. I really like Keen. That being said, if you are working in West Texas you will likely have to replace them frequently so don't spend too much. (I've had cacti thorns coming up through my insoles after a month surveying in a new pair of boots.)
Your Magellan shirts should be fine, at least to start out. Figure out what will work for you before you start spending money on field clothes. Most of my office gets long sleeve shirts from the Columbia Outlet. They have great deals and are perfect for summer fieldwork. Goodwill is great too. Also avoid wearing heavy pants unless you are working in dense scrub brush. Anything lightweight, long sleeved, and moisture wicking is good. You will be hot and sweaty with long sleeves, but staying covered up beats working with a sunburn for the next few days. You will sweat off your sunscreen faster than you think possible. You should also get a few Buff neck gaiters when you can (https://buffusa.com/ ). And a wide brimmed hat ASAP.
You'll want bugspray if you're working near Houston. And a pair of snake gaiters if your company doesn't provide them. We also use powdered lime (from the garden/tractor store -- dump some in an old sock and hit it over your waist/ankles/etc) to prevent chigger bites.
General advice for new CRMers -- try not to spend all your per diem out at the bar. Invest it in yourself by upgrading gear, regional books, professional organization memberships, saving for the off-season, retirement, etc. Chris Webster's Field Archaeologist's Survival Guide ( https://www.amazon.com/Field-Archaeologists-Survival-Guide-Management/dp/1611329280 ) really helped prepare me for my first job and finding the next ones. Other than that, have fun and explore!
Feel free to message me if you have any other questions!
I'm not a felon because I was never arrested nor charged for a felony. Consequently, I was not found guilty of a felony.
On the other hand, the people who are, indeed, arrested for felonies tend to be poorer and blacker than everyone else. And the people who actually get convicted for a felony? If you had to pick poor and black, you'd be right more than wrong.
Possible explanations for this would be that there are more blacks than whites in the US, but this is obviously false.
The next possible answer is that white people use less dope than black people, or that white people don't sell dope, or that white people commit fewer crimes. But I've seen white people smoke plenty of weed, snort lots of coke, sling plenty of stuff. I'd reckon your favorite explanation is that black people just commit more crimes, but I don't buy it.
I say that black people get busted more often because of unequal attention from law enforcement. Once they get arrested, and then are less likely to be able to defend themselves adequately because $$. Generations of public policy in the US, from slavery, through Reconstruction, to Jim Crow, to redlining, to the GI Bill have all made it so that black people are less likely to have the money to buy the same justice that others can.
There is certainly an element of personal choice to everything. And certainly I have had white acquaintances who got busted for heavy things (larceny, burglary, heroin x 5) and went away for awhile. That said, there's a pattern here that is greater than individual choice.
I am not a convicted felon because I live in the right neighborhood, had the right sort of parents, and never got busted for any crime. I don't think that my story would be the same if I were African American or poor.
If we accept that more black people are convicted because more black people do crime-- which I wouldn't-- then one still has to ask why is that so? Is it because black people were born somehow inherently incapable of making good decisions? That doesn't seem likely.
As for your second question, the only dealers I've been acquainted with were supporting a habit or making some side money. I have read an ethnography or so that shows the ultimate hourly wage of a crack dealer at the height of the crack boom to be less than minimum wage, tho.
>'Racism' in the public consciousness ...
Jim Crow racism. People are now colorblind racists.
sources: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1501260235
https://www.amazon.com/Racism-without-Racists-Color-Blind-Persistence/dp/1442202181
> I don't know what proportions or per capita means
A Problem With The Typical Profile
Now look back to the OP. The race with the highest percentage of serial killings: BLACK, not white. And if you know anything about trends the numbers show the number of white serial killers will continue to decrease while the number of black serial killers will increase.
Rise of the Black Serial Killer: Documenting a Startling Trend
[Gang War] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1903854296/) is interesting. As the name suggests, it covers Mcr's gang wars up until it was published in 2005 including what caused it to have nicknames like Gunchester, and the takeover of nightclub doors (Manchester eventually had a licensing scheme for bouncers called Doorsafe long before the national SIA one). I lived in halls in Chorlton from 1997 - 2001 and passed through Hulme most days where it was clear that there was something going on in the background. The odd pub suddenly disappeared and Hulme market moved, ostensibly as part of the regeneration. I also knew it was wise not to poke my nose in too much.
Since it was written Dessie Noonan was murdered in 2005, there were the riots in 2011, and Paul Massey was murdered in 2015.
You might want to read this.
It is supposed to be from this book, I can't confirm that the statement is from Ehrlichman's interview with Baum, but this is the quoted source.
John Ehrlichman, during an interview with Dan Baum
http://www.amazon.com/Smoke-Mirrors-Drugs-Politics-Failure/dp/0316084468#
I knew the first laws criminalizing marijuana were race based - against Mexican migrant works - but to find out that the whole scheduling system was put into place to suppress Black folks - that's fucked up, if it's true.
http://www.amazon.com/Hangmans-Diary-Executioner-Criminology-Enforcement/dp/0875851762
best i could find
A Hangmans Diary
Here's the diary of a executioner from 1500s Nuremberg.
Unfortunately, it's a reality of the field that, especially starting out, you'll do the best by being mobile, living light, and traveling cross-country to follow jobs. After you've built up a network, it's easier to pick and choose where you want to work. Embrace the shovelbum lifestyle for a few years and it can be a blast, but it's not without its tradeoffs. For more tips, I'll recommend [this book] (https://www.amazon.com/Field-Archaeologists-Survival-Guide-Management/dp/1611329280/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482344207&sr=1-1&keywords=chris+webster) as well as some of the Archaeology Podcast Network shows.
In addition to shovelbums/archyfieldwork/usajobs, you can also search for archaeology jobs though sites like indeed.com or even craigslist. Jobs posted by large environmental firms show up on the former and sometimes small archaeology shops show up on the latter.
Also check with your SHPO to see if they maintain a list of local cultural resources firms and then browse their websites for job postings. By far though, you'll find the most jobs through your network. After you land your first job, maintain good contact with coworkers you like and respect. Be sure to pass along job postings to them and they'll likely do the same. Conferences, especially regional conferences, are also good resources for networking - even if you don't find a job directly, it's good to keep up with who is doing what kinds of research and where and will help you define your own interests and direct who you might like to work and/or study with in the future. Don't go broke trying to attend every conference in the hopes of getting a job though.
P.S. Don't forget to send R. Joe or Jennifer a donation (or buy them a conference beer!) if/when you get a job through their sites!
For a different take on the subject, check out The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison.
I've done a lot of reading up on the topic. I'd recommend Transforming a Rape Culture -- it's a collection of essays written by all kinds of different people, men and women, and covers quite a large area. There are some articles included that I don't necessarily agree with 100% (for example, one of the first pieces is an Andrea Dworkin speech, and while she raises very interesting points, she's too bellicose for me personally), but it's a great resource to be in just one book.
Race to Incarcerate: A Graphic Retelling is a powerful book (graphic novel) which is very accessible to all audiences and has sources and citations backing up it's information. It's a must read, really.
Hmm ok I'm glad you clarified. I can see where you are coming from, but I just see it differently in that, American culture tends to put too much emphasis on the individual without considering the strutural. Since I studied social science (if you couldn't tell!) I changed a lot of my views, about the value of work (in regards of "skilled" and "unskilled labor), about oppertunity in America and about how larger structual issues creates a direct impact on people's lives and how we aren't willing to even look at those options to change (God forbid if we do anything against the mighty capitalism!).
A book that really stuck with me, because of the quality of writing, research and the insights it has, was In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Also people will give you funny looks for reading it!
http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis/dp/0521017114
I read an ethnography called "In Search of Respect" that details the lives of the impoverished in the Barrio in New York during the 1980s. It covers in depth the societal and cultural conditions that create drug and gang violence. Yes, there are many people who just draw on welfare, but many of those people work in the untaxed workforce. They might be the neighborhood plumber, electrician, automotive repairman, or refrdgerator specialist. They don't have formal jobs or titles or pay taxes so they are unaccounted for. These people also sell drugs and steal car stereos. Its all part of their 'underground' economy. In fact, many drug dealers start selling either because they became unemployed, or they were trying to lift themselves out of poverty.
The BLM movement has a point and there is still systemic oppression toward blacks, especially in the criminal justice system. Also, America still has a tremendous class problem, black or not: https://www.amazon.com/Rich-Get-Richer-Poor-Prison/dp/0205137725
Also, race realists are an unfortunate thing, and they often promote the idea of an ethnostate America where all non-whites are forcibly removed.
It's important that people don't self-victimize, right, but saying that everything is hunky-dory okay is a huge leap of faith. The guy you're arguing with is arguing in bad faith, and I don't think I'd call you racist, but there's still problems out there for marginalized classes and blacks remain one.
Edit: here's a video on wealth distribution in America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Another good educational read for you:
https://www.amazon.com/Smoke-Mirrors-Drugs-Politics-Failure/dp/0316084468
Hadn't heard of this. Cheers.
Here's the Amazon link.
We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan Community by Barbra Meek
If anyone has any interest in language revitalization, I think this is a great read.
Wisdom Sits in Place: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache by Keith Basso
A classic.
Trade of the Tricks: Inside the Magician's Craft by Graham Jones
Not nearly as heavy on the linguistics as the other two I mentioned (though he has a fair amount on language), but I thought it was a very entertaining and interesting read!
In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio by Philippe Bourgois
He constantly uses large chunks of quoted text from his informants, so there's really interesting code-switching and discussions of dialects and language ideologies happening, but it's not something that the author really focuses on or analyzes (his focus is on political economy). But I enjoyed it as an ethnography.
Writing Women's Worlds: Bedouin Stories by Lila Abu-Lughod
Fantastically written, really recommend this one, though it's not linguistic at all.
In Search of Respect if you’re into anthropology at all
In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, by Philipe Bourgeois, is an ethnography of street-level drug dealers written by an anthropologist. It's very readable for an academic analysis.
Makes Me Wanna Holler, by Nathan McCall, is an autobiography written by a gang-member-turned-journalist. It offers an unapologetic look at his experiences.
Public Enemies, by Bryan Burroughs, doesn't focus on the personal experiences and perspectives of gang members in the same ways. But it offers an interesting account of some of the big-name gangs and gang members of the 1930s and the FBI response.
I would have preferred "Mein Kampf", "Helter Skelter", "The Anarchists Cookbook", or More Guns, Less Crime
You're right: it's a little bit hard to know without looking at the original study or at least an accurate summary thereof. I am assuming that these studies are not in laboratory conditions and are rather interpretations of real-world data. When I said "cannot," I assumed (wrongly?) that you cannot cause crime in order to study crime-fighting techniques.
BTW, this book is the best thing I've read on the subject.
We still have segregation. It's never gone away. I live in Milwaukee, which is one of the most segregated cities in America. Racism and discrimination is still a huge problem in the states.
This is a great book to read in order to have a better understanding of what's going on in America for minorities
...Talking points? I'm a sociologist who works on economics, politics & crime and has worked in several police & prison orgs.
I'd be glad to cite every claim I made--though I can't imagine how explaining the is/ought distinction is a 'talking point.'
Crack is not more addictive than free based or injected cocaine, this is a physiological fact. It is only more addictive than snorted cocaine. And, it is not 18-100X more addictive than snorted cocaine, so that isn't even a justification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elements_of_the_Philosophy_of_Right
http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~hlevine/Secret_of_World_Wide_Drug_Prohibition__HG_Levine
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/ssrn-id1118460.pdf
http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~ec970ajf/Class_19/economics_drug_war%20copy.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Oblivion-Global-History-Narcotics/dp/0393325458
https://www.amazon.com/Creating-American-Junkie-Addiction-Research/dp/0801867983
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/harvard-economist-jeffrey-miron-on-why-drugs-should-be-legalized-a-886289.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/?utm_term=.765f9157fdf3
http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-theft-protect/
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=35
http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/Crime-briefing.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6950
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Color-Justice-Ethnicity-Wadsworth-Contemporary/dp/1111346925
http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-Justice-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20452518.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/who-are-biggest-killers-america-numbers-will-shock-you
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16702
http://hlrecord.org/2015/03/20-things-you-should-know-about-corporate-crime/
https://www.attn.com/stories/2643/crack-vs-cocaine
https://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/21784-prescription-drugs-kill-more-than-illegal-drugs-teens-at-high-risk
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/29/george-will/claims-smoking-kills-more-people-annually-other-da/
edit:
more sources
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2015.303032
http://news.stanford.edu/2016/06/28/stanford-researchers-develop-new-statistical-test-shows-racial-profiling-police-traffic-stops/
http://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/how-much-crime-fighting-do-%E2%80%98crime-fighters%E2%80%99-really-do
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1458086.files/Western.pdf
http://64.6.252.14/class/540/2013/science-cullen.pdf
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm
https://www.amazon.com/Rich-Get-Richer-Poor-Prison/dp/0205137725
http://www.infoshop.org/pdfs/Our-Enemies-in-Blue.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Lockdown-America-Police-Prisons-Crisis/dp/1844672492
[Buying]
This book for $2
David Kennedy has some really interesting stuff:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Fellowship-Violence-Inner-City/dp/1608194140
http://www.c-span.org/video/?303600-1/book-discussion-dont-shoot
I don't want to argue about this or be mean-spirited, ok? If you want to, please refrain from replying.
Let's just talk about the information. If you don't want to, that's ok. /u/KittikatB
-------------------
>It's hard to take him seriously because he calls himself an "expert"
Never heard him say that. Maybe he did. Where did you hear it?
>For example, he loves to go on about people who go missing at Point A and are found at faraway Point B. Guess what? Freaking out and moving far and fast is expected.
I think he's read the Lost Person Behavior book. He says he and his team tries to read up on as many SAR books as they can so they can have an idea of what is normal, standard practice, and can see when something deviates, and reference why it's a deviation.
If you look at the distances and terrain travelled (there's a table in one of his books, and he mentions them in some talks he does - Blaine talk, UPARS talk), they're surprising. You're glossing over the details I think, but if you look at the cases, more than a few stand out as unlikely journeys. Especially young children ending up in high elevation, over difficult terrain, apparently with few signs to show they made that journey - such as scratches on their body.
>Another problematic theme in Paulides' "research" is around people who get lost in plain sight of an obvious way to safety.
I don't even think that's something he talks about. Do you have some examples?
He does say people seem to disappear while in close proximity to other people (last in line, first in line), and that in almost all cases, these people apparently make no noise, and don't yell for help or respond when called.
This includes children, and people who have difficulty moving due to some sort of disability or being elderly. (Maurice Dametz, Owen Parfitt)
They also disappear when they're clearly not lost (Bobby Bizup), or when they are said to know the trail backwards (Karen Sykes). Still possible for them to get lost - that's not lost on me (no pun intended) - but that's usually not the only strange thing about the case.
>People love to go on about terminal burrowing and paradoxical undressing. I somewhat suspect that the incidences of such tend towards overstated on this sub, but the fact remains that they are very real phenomena, phenomena that an "expert" like Paulides should know well and understand. Yet he doesn't. It's a huge mystery to him, obviously supernatural because it can't possibly be rationally explained.
I do think people use it as a cover all explanation, but would also like to here Paulides address this more and explain why it's not relevant.
He may well not understand it, but I still don't think it explains or rules out most of the cases, and I don't see how terminal burrowing can explain people never being found.
If you know, please tell me so I can understand, too.
>Then there are the numbers. Paulides is looking at cases in Canada, the US, and Mexico. The second-largest country in the world, the fourth-largest country in the world, and the thirteenth-largest country in the world. All with a combined population of about 475 million. (Canada obviously contributes a lot to that figure :D) There is nothing strange about the number of people who go missing in the wilderness. Remember that the actual number of people using wilderness areas may be quite a bit higher when you include tourists. The probability of going missing in a wilderness area is very small. In fact, people are still more likely to go missing in an urban area than out in a forest.
Doesn't seem relevant. They happen often enough that something strange is going on, or there needs to be more public education or better safety measures put in place in parks or urban areas.
For example, if people are getting drunk and having car accidents, the authorities respond by educating the public, etc, to prevent it. It still happens, but successful campaigns lessen it.
>Then there is the location of his "hot spot." Shockingly, all coincide with popular parks, trails, and wilderness areas. If enough people go through an area, someone is eventually going to get hurt. Simple probability. If, say, one in 1000 people get hurt, an area that sees tens of thousands of visitors per year is going to have A LOT more accidents than an area that only sees a few thousand visitors per year. And then there are the realities that some terrain/areas/systems are simply more dangerous than an easy stroll on a flat, groomed trail.
Fair point, and I think his database should be held to scrutiny. We can't access it though, because he doesn't share it. I don't know why he doesn't share it, though he said he would share it with the park service if they wanted it.
I do think that the cluster areas don't discount the strangeness of some cases, and that the sub-clusters (certain types of people going missing) is worth considering (even if it's to educate that group so they don't go missing as much).
I also think better statistics on this whole subject would be good in general, so his stats can be held to scrutiny. Right now there don't seem to be any good stats on missing people.
>And the conspiracy angle. Jesus. If it was true, it would include thousands and thousands of people across most of a continent and include hundreds, thousands of independent agencies and organizations. It's absurd to argue that they are all in on some cover-up. How can SO many people keep that sort of secret...unless there isn't a secret.
I don't think he ever says it's a conspiracy, but he has presented what he says are the facts.
I think you're exaggerating what he does say.
>I don't know about you, but I'm not aware of any SAR techs, first responders, or related professionals who actually believe that anything outside of normal could possibly be going on. That alone should be a pretty big indicator that Paulides is full of shit.
Paulides says he has encountered many, including some at the NASAR talk he did:
>In the summer of 2012 I was asked to be a speaker of the NASAR (National Association for Search and Rescue) conference in South Lake Tahoe, one of the largest search and rescue conferences in the world. Our findings were presented to a packed room. Dozens of professionals approached me after the presentation and stated that what I had presented was known by the majority of the senior SAR personnel but that most don’t wish to discuss it. They stated that it is staggering the number of people that simply vanish in the wilds of North America.
Maybe he's lying. Who knows. Anyone attend that talk? Is there a recording?
I also don't think he'd be invited there for entertainment value. Some people must see value in what he says.
>If your game plan is so vague that it includes literally everything, it isn't a game plan. His "risk factors" or whatever he calls them are literally rocks, water, weather.
He doesn't say they're risk factors. That's misrepresenting what he says.
This is what happened:
He's profiling. That's to be expected given his background as a cop.
>If you put the entirety of humanity under some bizarre 'lost/hurt in the wilderness' watch, you WILL find a case that meets your criteria. It's a mathematical certainty because people DO get hurt in the wilderness. But it's literally akin to saying, "Everyone with a nose eventually dies, so something about noses must have something to do with their demise."
I don't think so.
Have you looked at the cases?
Even if 50% of them are explainable, the remaining ones are strange. That's all I'm saying, by the way - I don't know what's causing this, but when you take an open minded look at this, the possibilities of what might be happening are concerning.
Let's hope he's wrong and it's easily explainable.
>Here's his Bigfoot organization!
He said he:
(source)
However, he has never said bigfoot is the cause of missing people, nor has he said it isn't.
So, saying he has is wrong, or you have some information I don't have, or are reading between the lines of what he writes - which he invites, but isn't neccessarily something he said.
If you consider what he's speculating might be causing these disappearances (which you would know if you have done enough research), it seems to be more than just bigfoot.
I'm not saying I buy into that. I am saying I think it warrents investigation.
Yep. There's an incredible book called Smoke and Mirrors that documents the drug war in excellent detail. It should be required reading for high school civics.
The book is Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys by Victor Rios.
Two excerpts:
>The Stolen Bag of Chips
>[...] The store clerk, a balding, middle-aged, Asian American male, pointed to the door and yelled, "Only two kids allowed in the store at a time!" The three youths who were in line to pay for their items looked at the store clerk and at each other. I could see in their faces the look of despair as their most pleasurable moment of the day, to bite into a delicious candy bar, fell apart.
>Mike, who stood closest to the entrance of the door, responded, "We ain't doing shit." The store clerk looked at him and replied, "I am going to call the police!" Mike grabbed a twenty-five-cent bag of Fritos Flamin' Hot chips, lifted it up in front of the clerk's face, and said, "You see this? I was gonna pay for it, but now I ain't paying for shit, stupid mothafucka." He rushed out of the store with the bag of chips. The clerk picked up the phone and called the police. The rest of the youngsters dropped the snacks they were in line to purchase and ran out of the store. I walked up to the store clerk and gave him a quarter for Mike, who had stolen the chips. With an infuriated look, the clerk responded, "It's too late. The police are on their way to get the robbers."
>[...] When I ran into Flaco, he informed me that the police had arrested Mike that day for stealing the twenty-five-cent bag of chips. After interviewing the boys and observing the store clerk's interactions with them soon after this event, I found that Mike's "irrational" behavior had changed the way the store clerk interacted with the boys. The boys believed that the store clerk had begun to treat them with more respect. The store clerk avoided provoking negative interactions with the boys, even if it meant allowing a few more boys into the store than his store policy demanded. While even Mike's peers believed that his actions were "crazy," they also acknowledged that something significant had changed in their interactions with the store clerk.
>[...] In Mike's worldview, his strategy of fighting for dignity at the cost of giving up his freedom had paid off. Mike's actions resulted in his commitment to the criminal justice system. According to him, he was very aware of this risk when he stole the bag of chips. He had grown frustrated by the treatment he had received at school, by police, and then culminating at the store. This frustration, and a deep desire to feel respected, led Mike to willfully expose himself to incarceration.
> In the end, Mike lost his freedom, becoming supervised by the criminal justice system. Nonetheless, Mike gained a sense of dignity for himself and his peers, which, in his mind, made it worth exchanging his freedom. This scenario is representative of many of the crimes that the other boys committed. Demanding dignity from the system generated a paradox for the boys: they all indicated wanting to be free of incarceration, policing, and surveillance, while, at the same time, punitive surveillance, policing, and discipline led many of them to consciously seek their dignity and act in a way that pipelined them into the criminal justice system. Nonetheless, striving for dignity led some of the boys deeper into the system.
>The boys took control of their criminalization by using the few resources they had at hand. In this example, Mike and his friends changed the interactional dynamic between themselves and the store clerk. [...] However, the price Mike paid for this was steep, this arrest later led him deeper into the criminal justice system.
>[...] Maintaining a sense of dignity -- feeling accepted and feeling that their human rights were respected -- was a central struggle. The boys chose consciously chose to fight for their dignity, even if it meant risking their freedom.
[...]
>Defiance as Resistance
>It seemed that defiance constituted a temporary success to the boys. Watching interactions between the boys and authority figures was often like watching a life-sized game of chess in action, with a rook strategically moving in response to a queen's movement. A police officer would get out of his car, the boys would posture, an officer would grab a young man, his friends would prepare to run, and officer would humiliate one of the boys, and the boy would respond by not cooperating or by cursing back.
>As one side moved its pieces to repress, another moved its pieces to resist. The boys were almost always captured and eliminated from the chess board, but not before they had encroached into the opponent's territory, throwing the system off and influencing the rules and movements of the game.
Interesting question. Off the top of my head, I would say that makes you not so much 'a feminist' as 'a person whose viewpoint has been influenced by feminism'. Personally, I don't think you can really call yourself a feminist if you don't believe in patriarchy, as in the idea that women are historically oppressed as a class, but that is a big discussion and not one I intend to get into here.
By the way, you say you 'really don't believe in a contemporary patriarchy' - what about the likes of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Is patriarchy not expressed through the machismo of certain Latin American culture and households? If it was considered relatively normal for Latino men to beat their wives and have control over the household finances, (that's a big 'if', I know), would that not be considered a form of patriarchy? You might like to take a look at In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, which could be said to portray a patriarchal society, in terms of the social norms and household arrangements of the subjects. Obviously, it depends a bit on what you mean by 'patriarchal', but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to refer to these families in that way.
Thank you for posting this. This is a great insight to the injustices that the incarcerated population and their families see every day. I have personally had to use the companies they mentioned in the video for commissary while I was incarcerated and the prices for everything are inflated. A good book on this if you want to read on more of this type of subject is The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Prison. I read it while I was locked up and it really opened my eyes. http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Richer-Poor-Prison-Edition/dp/0205137725
Coincidentally, the font they used for the movie title was previously used on the first edition book cover for this mob book based on the life of Busgy Siegel I came across on Amazon.
If you want to read an Ethnography i suggest In Search of Respect by Phillipe Bourgois. I read it after my first semester of Anthropology and i think its the book that made me continue on and do a major in Anthro.
It is pretty easy to get through and very interesting and relevant subject matter.
Well i guess the kid read this BS book and did what he considered the logical thing.
After all, nothing bad can happen when every person no matter how irresponsible or unhinged has a gun.
Property > Life.
There is actually evidence proving the opposite. The best book on the subject by far is The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0205137725/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_iYdWzbF2006CY
You should check out this book. Written by an actual researcher who lived in one of Harlem's worst drug neighborhoods. It deals with a lot of issues, but one is particularly related to your post- the family units. Given the societal pressure for a two parent home, most mothers (since primarily the fathers do the abusing) stay with them, thinking that's what is best for their children. However, the real problem is they don't kick them out. When the kid(s) grow up seeing the parents constantly arguing and fighting, they think that's how relationships are supposed to be, and perpetuate the cycle.
The whole book is really good though. Definitely demonstrates why it is so difficult for people to get out of very poor neighborhoods, where they make more money selling dope and committing crimes than the minimum wage jobs they are barely qualified for. It's not as easy as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," like the politicians and MSM would like the population to believe.
board4life: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link
You should check out this book. Written by an actual researcher who lived in one of Harlem's worst drug neighborhoods. It deals with a lot of issues, but one is particularly related to your post- the family units. Given the societal pressure for a two parent home, most mothers (since primarily the fathers do the abusing) stay with them, thinking that's what is best for their children. However, the real problem is they don't kick them out. When the kid(s) grow up seeing the parents constantly arguing and fighting, they think that's how relationships are supposed to be, and perpetuate the cycle.
The whole book is really good though. Definitely demonstrates why it is so difficult for people to get out of very poor neighborhoods, where they make more money selling dope and committing crimes than the minimum wage jobs they are barely qualified for. It's not as easy as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," like the politicians and MSM would like the population to believe.
Books I would add to balance this list out:
Anthropology
Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches by Marvin Harris. Unlike Germs, Guns, and Steel, this book is written by an actual anthropologist (sorry Mr. Diamond) and is a really easy read--it covers topics from the sacredness of cows to cargo cults. It's fun, too, as Harris is an entertaining and engaging writer, and it's a slim book.
Bonus Level Challenge Anthropology Read:
In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio by Phillipe Bourgois. This is another monograph written by an actual anthropologist. This book is more challenging subject matter, and I should put a big Trigger Warning on it for violence against women.
Economics
Wages, Price, and Profit by Karl Marx. It's a shame more people don't read Marx beyond the Manifesto, which he wrote fairly early on in his academic life. W,P and P is a preparatory work for Capital and outlines one of the arguments Marx makes in the much denser and more complete work that was to follow. It's short, and one of Marx's more approachable writings, dealing with something we are all familiar with: how much we get paid, and why.
Bonus Level Challenge Economics Read:
Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V. I. Lenin. This book contains much drier material, as Lenin draws upon common economic sources (I hope you like talking about tons of iron) to illustrate phenomenon like World War 1--which he saw as a competition of imperialist powers to redivide the Middle East and Africa--and even the Iraq Invasion that would come almost 100 years later.
for those that need proof of what jareth says, read smoke and mirrors by dan baum.
basically, carter relaxed the enforcement nixon had put in place to persecute his enemies... but the reefer propaganda had taken hold, and when atlanta housewives saw their little jimmy smoking doobies, they freaked out... same as the old biddies during prohibition.
Wow, you have to be really bigoted to think that was the only reason these things happen. It's not as simple as that. It's a huge cycle of poverty, violence, and drugs that all contribute to this. Please please educate yourself so you don't embarrass yourself. This book will help you. It's not about black people mainly, but it'll give you an idea what the reasons are.
Hi there, it looks like you and some others in this thread are having a difficult time distinguishing two different types of discourse, between that of the macro level and the micro.
The macro level discourse uses generalities, grouping different traits, attributes, behaviors, and other sorts of variables into labels that are often binary, such as male and female, poor and wealthy, black and white, etc. Depending on what area is involved, the discourse will grow more specific because the method of grouping is fractal.
For example if you are speaking from a macro level perspective, but specifically about income inequality, your groups will change from "wealthy vs poor" to more nuanced groupings such as "super rich", "middle class" "lower middle class" "working class" "homeless", etc etc.
These types of discussions serve to foster understanding of data that has been collected in large amounts about different groups, and the problematic results of that data.
Problems such as incarceration rates for different ethnic groups varying so widely, rape and sexual assault statistics, unequal income and wealth distribution--these problems must be discussed on the macro level, because the data shows they are systemic, aka not the result of various lone individuals making autonomous decisions. There is not a single bad guy in need of arrest, or one evil-doer who's reign must end. The data shows that the problems are systemic, so we have to talk about them from that perspective rather than an individual or case-by-case basis.
A micro level discourse will specifically be about individual people. If you are talking about a friend, you will specifically mention factors or attributes that relate to them as individuals. This is the most common type of discourse between individuals.
The problem you appear to be having is that you are reading or hearing macro level discourse and interpreting it in a micro level way. Feeling personally attacked is common if you share attributes with the groups being discussed as problematic, and it is not uncommon at all.
Many people right now are having macro-level discussions about various groups and the systemic problems attached to these groups.
As this post suggests, the most common response for people who share attributes with the group being discussed as problematic will be to respond defensively, saying "not all men/white/wealthy are the cause of an issue!"
This behavior is understandable in individuals who lack knowledge, who don't understand that the discourse they're breaking into is not an individual one or a personal attack. That said, it is your job as someone lacking knowledge, when you run into something you don't understand or thst upsets you, to seek understanding and knowledge.
The many thousands of people who begin and continue these macro-level discourses, who make comics like this or who post YouTube videos or create other media to further the conversation, those people are clearly talking and creating and working hard at this discussion for a reason. They are not obliged to stop their discourse and explain it to you, it is your job--everyone's job--to seek to understand the conversation taking place before putting your two cents in.
The rise in violence linked to white supremacy and misogyny we've been seeing is directly related to this sort of reaction; people who share attributes with macro level groups deemed problematic feel offended, scared, angry, defensive. Instead of seeking understanding or realizing that it's not an individual attack or even an individual discussion, they react--often violently. This is, unfortunately, one method by which oppressor groups are self-policing, and how they police other groups.
Here is a reading list for those interested in educating yourself about issues relating to race and gender:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493644/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-3993670-7898564
Enjoy not reading my source.
Here is the mobile version of your link
What kind of terrain does your SAR group cover? I'm part of a mountain/prairie group and here's my list. We have to carry a 24 pack.
Emergency bivy bag (thick space blanket)
Reflective tarp (thick space blanket again)
Backpack waterproof cover
Super thin tarp for shelter
Blow up sleeping pad
Sunscreen/bug spray/soap kit
Cooking kit
Food bag
Water bottle
Thermos
Rain pants
Emergency clothing kit (base layer, toque, bandana, socks in waterproof bag)
Garbage bags
Knife
Bear spray
Belt
Headlamp x2
Spare batteries for light/watch
TP
Safety glasses
Ear plugs
Fire starting kit
3mm accessory cord
Gorilla tape
Flagging tape
Foldable saw
Personal first aid kid
Glow stick
Paracord
2 biners, two red lights for outside of pack
Water bottle belt holder
Compass
Notebook
Pen
Lip chap
Leather gloves
Medical gloves
Seasonal dependent clothing
SAR high vis jacket
Hiking pole
Handheld flashlight
Also have my lost person analysis book, map books, life jacket, throw bag, and helmet ready depending on the search.
Now at the start of every search I dump about 50% of this stuff in my truck out. Just have it all ready for whatever goes on.
Here is the link for the lost person book-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1879471396/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1451182926&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=Lost+person&dpPl=1&dpID=41tsEFudYML&ref=plSrch
For brands I wouldn't worry too much about the exact brand. Don't cheap out on it though. Look at gear at mid to high range quality. Most of my gear is from mountain equipment coop. At times you'll cover large bits of ground so just make sure you buy lightweight gear. Also good waterproof clothing and good water resistant backpack. Only other recommendations is to get a good fixed blade knife for multipurpose use, and to consider a headlamp that takes AA instead of AAA batteries. Life will be longer and batteries are cheaper in the long run.
>Also the person who had the gun was and 9 times out of ten would not be taught self restraint for such a situation.
Please give me a source for this? It was studied that civilians actually make fewer mistakes then police. Firearm owners constantly enjoy their hobby while police do not get adequate training.
> A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people.
-Study was compiled into this book here
Also a Newsweek article found:
>Only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen.
>Which is obvious due to the shots he releases whilst the man in on the floor
Just because a person is on the floor does not mean he isn't a danger. What if he turned around and shot back? Hindsight is 20/20 but one doesn't take chances when their and other's life is in danger.
Talk about breeding paranoia. There is paranoia against legal carriers.
>Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.
>That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.
>This is not meant to be an indictment of the police. In fact, because police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Although they are trained to repress this instinct, it does not always work, as evidenced by the number of innocent people killed by police. Also, since they are generally better marksmen, they tend to kill, rather than wound or totally miss their target.
>The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. Although I have the greatest respect for the police and how they must respond under pressure, I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace.
Which is why I clarified on what timeline I was basing my original comment on and expressed that it seemed like you disagreed. I said he should have been carrying and you are writing a dissertation of every choice he's made in his life. Sure man, lots of things can happen, and I'm just expressing my opinion. People can do whatever they like. It's my opinion, like I said, to feel which side the odds are on. For example, it's my opinion that it's probably safer carrying a gun in a gun free zone than not. It may not be (oh god what if I shoot myself!) but that's my opinion.
At that point I think we are just debating safety of himself and those around him on the basis of whether he is carrying or not. I don't think there is a way to convince someone on the fence either way, but the way I read the odds and my own confidence/experience/training, I'd rather be on one end of the situation than the other. You can point out statistics but so can I. You say it's statistically unlikely for a person to be in the situation, and I point out it's unlikely for a CCW to commit a crime or accidentally shoot someone in the heat of the moment as you point out that could happen. I think it's fair game, but you seem to think I'm upset and rabidly defending my position and decided to write a novel to me on the subject about confirmation bias and shit. I got shit to do man. I'm basing my argument in response to yours. You wanna use statistics, then I will too. But don't call me two faced for calling you out on it and using it against you. Like I said, you wanna talk about majority, then we'll talk about majorities. If you wanna talk about exceptions, then we'll talk about exceptions. That's pretty much all you talk about so let's talk about it.
> Than who? And I'd love to see the stats. I love stats.
Civilians. Police. Take your pick. There are plenty of comparisons on the Googles or just do math. I think they have less traffic violations too. :)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518334/
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/
https://crimeresearch.org/tag/annual-report-on-number-of-concealed-handgun-permits/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493644/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-3993670-7898564
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/who-are-the-greater-threats-to-public-safety-police-or-carry-permit-holders/
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/
This is exciting. I'm glad to hear Oakland is finally implementing Operation Ceasefire, having recently read David Kennedy's book Don't Shoot. I hope it can work. Nabbing these 8 will hopefully have a ripple effect.
I HIGHLY recommend reading his book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1608194140#
Kling blaims the poor for their poverty. I disagree with him and think his argument is not firmly developed.
Poverty is a structure whose product is the poor. Class reproduces itself. The children of the wealthy and well-educated grow up to be wealthy and well-educated because their parents bestow upon them the ability to navigate this socioeconomic system. Similarly is true for the poor and poorly-educated. (read the sociological study Unequal Childhoods if you want something more substantial than my rambling comment).
He is coding class warfare in "libertarian beliefs." Rather, we should recogonize the poor are disadvantaged not only because of their poverty, but because they don't understand our current socioeconomic system. "Hard work" alone won't help you (drug dealers work hard). Teach kids to discard constraining notions of gender, teach kids how to talk to professionals, teach kids to how to speak and dress like the hegemonic class - like rich white people. That (unfortunately) will likely get you far in this country.
https://www.amazon.com/Run-Fugitive-Fieldwork-Encounters-Discoveries/dp/022613671X
This book gives a pretty clear idea of why running from the cops is a good idea. Innocent or guilty, the chances that an interaction with the police will come out well for a black man are poor.
That's the theory.
Did you know 50% of marriages end in divorce... Oh wait!
Much like this bullshit statistics "grit" is bullshit. Grit is not a new idea nor is it profound. Let's not mention that her statement really downplays the impact of socio-economic status. Lastly we should remember that "The Rich Gets Richer and the Poor Gets Prison"
Smoke and Mirrors. Read it.
>"Or trot out the fact that most serial killers and pedophiles are white males."
Speaking just in total numbers? Maybe. Adjusting the statistic to the current white population.? Ops, sorry but no.
I guess that negatives(and false in this case) stereotypes are ok is they are about whites, you can read more about this myth here, but careful now, it might brake your preconceived view of society.
>The officers unloaded 16 rounds in the shadow of the Empire State Building at a disgruntled former apparel designer, killing him after he engaged in a gunbattle with police, authorities said.Three passersby sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments, according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. All injuries were caused by police, he said Saturday.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/
>Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies than it did last year, and Police Chief James Craig is crediting armed citizens for the drop. “Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,” Chief Craig, who has been an open advocate for private gun ownership, told The Detroit News in an interview. “I don’t want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/16/detroit-police-chief-says-armed-citizens-are-curbi/
> Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/
> in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493644/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-3993670-7898564 However, this dataset is 21 years old, but a good reference.
Armed Resistance to Crime:
The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.
TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL, Duke University
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
Ok. You lose.
A Chicago University Study
revealed that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%
The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29 according to the FBI Crime Data.
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33. Which then do not "qualify" as a "mass shooting" so do not get reported by the media.
Another fun fact.
Conceal carry owners nationwide have a 3% error rate when correctly identifying and shooting the bad guy.
The police? 11%.
Facts hurt don't they?
You just got schooled son.
Your safe space is ---------> way