The Corporate States of America

[stalebiscuit]

So under your new idea of a criminal we should not need to build anymore prisons. In fact a private prison system would not make a profit, too few prisoners. Stalebiscuit's definition of a criminal: Violent irrational human being, repeat offenders

Here are the stats man, most prisoners are in for non-violent drug related offenses.
More than half (55%) of federal prisoners are serving time for a drug offense, and 13% for a
violent offense.
· Nearly three-fourths (72.1%) of the population are non-violent offenders with no history of
violence.
· One-third (34.4%) are first-time, non-violent offenders.

(by now you should be outraged right?)

Here is the link if you want to check sources. http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_federalprisonpop.pdf

thats not from a reputable source sorry

taken from their website

The Sentencing Project firmly believes that citizen involvement in criminal justice reform is critical. We work closely with established community-based organizations to identify means by which local leaders can empower their neighbors in order to influence public policy. We also utilize our publications and expertise to educate policymakers and practitioners about sentencing issues and to recommend policy alternatives. This page provides advocates with tools and information to take action to improve our system of justice.

they obviously have an agenda and use raw baseless stats to justify and install their beliefs

feelings have no rational matter in policy making, this group is the same as amnesty international

give me a government backed source and then i will argue the little things

 

[medicineman]

When that service organization can at best only be at the scene of ANY crime within 10 minutes. This is not security. This is no defense. It is only peace of mind, until reality shatters the illusion.

Cops only exist to sweep the streets of rif-raf the rich don't want to observe. Well that and arrest a few pot smokers now and again. I think all this undercover crap you see on TV is just to make you feel safer, Every once in a while they stumble on to a bad guy, but not very often. Most are caught by sheer stupidity.

 

[stalebiscuit]

When that service organization can at best only be at the scene of ANY crime within 10 minutes. This is not security. This is no defense. It is only peace of mind, until reality shatters the illusion.

Cops only exist to sweep the streets of rif-raf the rich don't want to observe. Well that and arrest a few pot smokers now and again. I think all this undercover crap you see on TV is just to make you feel safer, Every once in a while they stumble on to a bad guy, but not very often. Most are caught by sure stupidity.

so by that logic you support being able to own a gun and carry, defend, and use deadly force

just curios really, i wouldnt be surprised by your answer either way

 

[medicineman]

so by that logic you support being able to own a gun and carry, defend, and use deadly force

just curios really, i wouldnt be surprised by your answer either way

Would you believe I'm one of the priveledged few that has a carry permit in Nv. So yes you could say I support the above. I very seldom carry, in fact hardly ever have I actually carried a gun, in fact I can't remember if I ever went out in public carrying one of my peices, but sometimes I carry it in my vehicle. It gives one a false sense of security, but if pushed to the limit or facing death, for me or my family, I could take someones life. I was in the military and know how to use a weapon. With a handgun at 50ft, I'm pretty darn good.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

so by that logic you support being able to own a gun and carry, defend, and use deadly force

just curios really, i wouldnt be surprised by your answer either way

Defense being the key word. I see nothing wrong with using lethal force to defense one's self... especially since the alternative involves getting sued by a stupid asshole of a lawyer and the criminal because you merely injured them.

 

[stalebiscuit]

Would you believe I'm one of the priveledged few that has a carry permit in Nv. So yes you could say I support the above. I very seldom carry, in fact hardly ever have I actually carried a gun, in fact I can't remember if I ever went out in public carrying one of my peices, but sometimes I carry it in my vehicle. It gives one a false sense of security, but if pushed to the limit or facing death, for me or my family, I could take someones life. I was in the military and know how to use a weapon. With a handgun at 50ft, I'm pretty darn good.

good to know, even though we disagree sounds to me like your responsible, and thats a good thing

but i thought nevada had relatively loose permit restrictions

 

[stalebiscuit]

Defense being the key word. I see nothing wrong with using lethal force to defense one's self... especially since the alternative involves getting sued by a stupid asshole of a lawyer and the criminal because you merely injured them.

if you shoot someone, even if its a wanted convict who murdered two people and was coming after you with 20 witnesses and was hi on PCP, you will still be arrested.....and probably released quickly

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

if you shoot someone, even if its a wanted convict who murdered two people and was coming after you with 20 witnesses and was hi on PCP, you will still be arrested.....and probably released quickly

Yeah, once the cops realize that you did their job, and keeping you under arrest is more than likely to cause a negative public outcry.

 

[suedonimn]

so by that logic you support being able to own a gun and carry, defend, and use deadly force

just curios really, i wouldnt be surprised by your answer either way

Yes, I do own firearms, and yes I do believe in carrying a loaded firearm, and I am prepared to defend myself using deadly force. If we all practiced the Second Amendment 911 would not have happen the way it did, not to get into another side track. If you think for one minute that a felon is NOT going to possess a firearm to defend themselves if they need it, then I am dumb founded. There is a reason for the saying; "When "THEY" outlaw guns, only Outlaws will own guns." it is a cliche'. Look up how many people are killed every year as a direct result of the actions of a man/woman on the working side of a firearm, as opposed to the working side of a prescription pad. The numbers are supriseing, then add in knife fights and boched surgeries. Do you get my drift. Now Stalebiscuit, do you believe that people are mostly good, or malicious? That is my question to you.

 

[stalebiscuit]

Yes, I do own firearms, and yes I do believe in carrying a loaded firearm, and I am prepared to defend myself using deadly force. If we all practiced the Second Amendment 911 would not have happen the way it did, not to get into another side track. If you think for one minute that a felon is NOT going to possess a firearm to defend themselves if they need it, then I am dumb founded. There is a reason for the saying; "When "THEY" outlaw guns, only Outlaws will own guns." it is a cliche'. Look up how many people are killed every year as a direct result of the actions of a man/woman on the working side of a firearm, as opposed to the working side of a prescription pad. The numbers are supriseing, then add in knife fights and boched surgeries. Do you get my drift. Now Stalebiscuit, do you believe that people are mostly good, or malicious? That is my question to you.

i believe people in general have the tendency to be good

but it only takes a few to fuck things up, which is why i will carry a styer m9 as soon as i turn 21

 

[suedonimn]

Well your answer is pretty typical, with the exception of your second part about carrying. I find most people that think people are mostly good don't believe these same mostly good people should carry or even be allowed to own firearms. I happen to think people will commit, even if it seems trivial, a crime if it presents itself in a way that seems fool proof. Ever tell a little white lie, picked up something that did not belong to you and kept it. See what I am saying, without being conscious, people will commit crimes. When poeple are making profits off the hardwork of criminals, then the saying "crime doesn't pay" is meaningless, and only waiting for someone to exploit the criminal, and pass laws to make new criminals tomarrow, out of yesterdays law abiding citizens.

 

[CrackerJax]

Unconscious crimes eh? Uh huh....



out.

 

[suedonimn]

Unconscious crimes eh? Uh huh....



out.

Picture if you will, a man visits another mans yard sale unwittingly puchases an item well worth over a thousand dollars, for pennies on the dollar. Takes said item home, diplays it with joy, invites guests to come and experience same said joys. Another man recognizes this as an item stolen from his mothers house, same man reports this to the police. First man arrested for recieving stolen property. Was the first man consciously commiting a crime?

Stranger things have happened.

 

[NewGrowth]

Please don't hijack my thread and turn this into a Gun Control argument, if you want to argue about that start your own thread.

Thanks,
-NG

 

[NewGrowth]

On that note stalebiscuit asked for another source and I am happy to provide.

Here is a good wiki link, and show pretty clearly and in an un-biased manner that we have a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States

The US Department of Justice like to make it hard to find info but I will provide sources for each of these stats I provide.

Federal prisons were estimated to hold 176,268 sentenced inmates as of Sept. 30, 2006. Of these, 16,507 were incarcerated for violent offenses, including 2,923 for homicide, 9,645 for robbery, and 3,939 for other violent crimes. In addition, 10,015 inmates were serving time for property crimes, including 519 for burglary, 6,437 for fraud, and 3,059 for other property offenses. A total of 93,751 were incarcerated for drug offenses. Also, 54,336 were incarcerated for public-order offenses, incluging 19,496 for immigration offenses and 24,298 for weapons offenses.

Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 26, Appendix Table 13.

According to the US Justice Department, 27.9% of drug offenders in state prisons are serving time for possession; 69.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses; and 2.7% are in for "other."

Source: Mumola, Christopher J., and Karberg, Jennifer C., "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Oct. 2006) (NCJ213530), p. 4.

Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions.

Source: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997).

 

[NorthwestBuds]

hi i like the way you guys bicker. oops did i spell that right?

 

[Leilani Garden]

Stalebiscuit wrote:

thats not from a reputable source sorry

taken from their website

Quote:
The Sentencing Project firmly believes that citizen involvement in criminal justice reform is critical. We work closely with established community-based organizations to identify means by which local leaders can empower their neighbors in order to influence public policy. We also utilize our publications and expertise to educate policymakers and practitioners about sentencing issues and to recommend policy alternatives. This page provides advocates with tools and information to take action to improve our system of justice.
they obviously have an agenda and use raw baseless stats to justify and install their beliefs

feelings have no rational matter in policy making, this group is the same as amnesty international

give me a government backed source and then i will argue the little things
__________________


Just wanted to make a couple of comments on this:

1. This organization is not necessarily lacking in reliability simply because they put their "bias" on the front page of their document. It's actually the other way around: they are more reputable, or reliable, because they DO make their mission statement upfront. The sneaky sources are those who don't include such information about their raison d'etre; you'll see plenty of this in documents that appear to be government-sponsored documents. (That would be called propaganda--intentionally attempting to make something look more official or reliable than it really is.) Anyone recall the hoopla about the guy in education who was allegedly reporting on the state of education for the federal government, yet he was on the take from the federal government?

2. If you look at the footnote included on the link provided, you'll see that the information comes from peer-reviewed journals. A peer-reviewed journal is about the highest form of reliability you can get from a source, because their editors do not publish just anything. Articles, studies, etc, have to be reviewed by those with credibility within any given field and given a green light, before their research can be accepted for publication.


Dismissing a source that is wide open about their agenda is a mistake.

Go back to that link, copy/paste the sources into google and you'll find all kinds of reliable information, published by journals with proven track records in the realm of peer-reviewed research.

Just because you don't like what you see regarding the mission of any given organization does not make that source unreliable. Quite the contrary in many cases.

 

[CrackerJax]

Stalebiscuit wrote:

thats not from a reputable source sorry

taken from their website

Quote:
The Sentencing Project firmly believes that citizen involvement in criminal justice reform is critical. We work closely with established community-based organizations to identify means by which local leaders can empower their neighbors in order to influence public policy. We also utilize our publications and expertise to educate policymakers and practitioners about sentencing issues and to recommend policy alternatives. This page provides advocates with tools and information to take action to improve our system of justice.
they obviously have an agenda and use raw baseless stats to justify and install their beliefs

feelings have no rational matter in policy making, this group is the same as amnesty international

give me a government backed source and then i will argue the little things
__________________


Just wanted to make a couple of comments on this:

1. This organization is not necessarily lacking in reliability simply because they put their "bias" on the front page of their document. It's actually the other way around: they are more reputable, or reliable, because they DO make their mission statement upfront. The sneaky sources are those who don't include such information about their raison d'etre; you'll see plenty of this in documents that appear to be government-sponsored documents. (That would be called propaganda--intentionally attempting to make something look more official or reliable than it really is.) Anyone recall the hoopla about the guy in education who was allegedly reporting on the state of education for the federal government, yet he was on the take from the federal government?

2. If you look at the footnote included on the link provided, you'll see that the information comes from peer-reviewed journals. A peer-reviewed journal is about the highest form of reliability you can get from a source, because their editors do not publish just anything. Articles, studies, etc, have to be reviewed by those with credibility within any given field and given a green light, before their research can be accepted for publication.


Dismissing a source that is wide open about their agenda is a mistake.

Go back to that link, copy/paste the sources into google and you'll find all kinds of reliable information, published by journals with proven track records in the realm of peer-reviewed research.

Just because you don't like what you see regarding the mission of any given organization does not make that source unreliable. Quite the contrary in many cases.

Or maybe it's just easier to admit it since there is NO way to hide it in the first place. That's a case of common sense. This however does not bolster their posit. It's just one less thing they have to waste time explaining.


out.

 

[medicineman]

Yeah, once the cops realize that you did their job, and keeping you under arrest is more than likely to cause a negative public outcry.

It's always better with no witnesses, but if you do it right, and tell it right, you will be vindicated, but be prepared to pay approx. 10K in lawyers fees. Never say it was an accident unless it really was, then you are admitting you are stupid and will probably go to jail and lose your permit. It is fairly easy in Nv. to obtain a carry permit, much easier than getting a MJ permit.

 

[stalebiscuit]

On that note stalebiscuit asked for another source and I am happy to provide.

Here is a good wiki link, and show pretty clearly and in an un-biased manner that we have a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States

The US Department of Justice like to make it hard to find info but I will provide sources for each of these stats I provide.

Federal prisons were estimated to hold 176,268 sentenced inmates as of Sept. 30, 2006. Of these, 16,507 were incarcerated for violent offenses, including 2,923 for homicide, 9,645 for robbery, and 3,939 for other violent crimes. In addition, 10,015 inmates were serving time for property crimes, including 519 for burglary, 6,437 for fraud, and 3,059 for other property offenses. A total of 93,751 were incarcerated for drug offenses. Also, 54,336 were incarcerated for public-order offenses, incluging 19,496 for immigration offenses and 24,298 for weapons offenses.

Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 26, Appendix Table 13.

According to the US Justice Department, 27.9% of drug offenders in state prisons are serving time for possession; 69.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses; and 2.7% are in for "other."

Source: Mumola, Christopher J., and Karberg, Jennifer C., "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Oct. 2006) (NCJ213530), p. 4.

Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions.

Source: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997).

you cite wikepedia

whatever, your still basing it on raw statistics which means jack shit

lets look at this paragraph

Federal prisons were estimated to hold 176,268 sentenced inmates as of Sept. 30, 2006. Of these, 16,507 were incarcerated for violent offenses, including 2,923 for homicide, 9,645 for robbery, and 3,939 for other violent crimes. In addition, 10,015 inmates were serving time for property crimes, including 519 for burglary, 6,437 for fraud, and 3,059 for other property offenses. A total of 93,751 were incarcerated for drug offenses. Also, 54,336 were incarcerated for public-order offenses, incluging 19,496 for immigration offenses and 24,298 for weapons offenses.

ok so, according to that source, the us justice department, well 16,507 were incarcerated for assault, murder, and all that jazz (mind you the stuff they were convicted for)

what they dont consider to be a violent crime is property offenses.......that includes arson im sure, as well as burglary (which can turn violent and those people need to be locked away) fraud, which is not violent but then again not a "victimless" crime. 25,000 were for weapons offenses......id consider that to be a violent crime really, and immigration.......wow thats alot really. but 93,751 were for drug related problems (mind you, this is FEDERAL PRISON they dont deal with pot smokers). im pretty sure that selling crack, and heavy drugs make up the majority of inmates in a federal prison

now your other sources try to back it up, like this one

According to the US Justice Department, 27.9% of drug offenders in state prisons are serving time for possession; 69.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses; and 2.7% are in for "other."

but look closesly, it says state prisons (and im assuming all states are the same, another reason raw stats dont work) now that 27.9% drug offenders who are in for possession dont come from the 93,751 federal inmates. also state prisons are much more lax when compared to federal prison

that means that any of those drug offenders could be serving time for about a month on average, theres just alot who get caught and convicted quickly (thats how alot states make money, by busting drugs)

dude, your stats are not adding up at all and at a glance they do, do you justice......but when ya think about it....meh