Watch South Park, it'll all become clear.
Oh, by the way I have no comment on the actual situation, I just watched that episode of South Park a while ago, and I felt like posting
What a tragedy... and to children,in a nation that prides itself on its non-violence.
However, this DOES do a lot to dispell the myth that a knife (as opposed to a handgun) cannot be used as a weapon of mass-killing.
- If I'm correct, this is the FIRST incident of this type in this decade, if not FIRST in Japanese history.
- Carried out by PSYCHOTIC ADULT, not TROUBLED TEENAGER!
- KNIFE instead of GUN
Japanese plan on making this type of incident HISTROY. With all due respect, good US of A only started to pay real attention after Columbine, who knows how many kids are killed in the ghetto before and after Columbine that never hit the news.
Plus Columbine only hit national because of the sear "magnitude" of the incident.
This accident shows that a pycho somehow got lose, not that the Japanese are "violent", or failed as a peaceful race! we can not linked the behaviour of some crazy bastard to some deep sociological failings of Japanese society!
Columbine and repeated incidents after Columbine on the other hands, shows that North American has failed their children in basic education and moral standard.
In my opinion, Japanese have nothing to worry about, North Americans on the other hands, should really starting to do something about their education.
[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
If anyone thought I was being serious then he/she is in serious need of treatment
Watch South Park, it'll all become clear.
Oh, by the way I have no comment on the actual situation, I just watched that episode of South Park a while ago, and I felt like posting
"Ah, You American, American have big penis, big big penis!"
Regarding the incident: I find the situation horrifying...but not altogether out of place, which is probably the most frightening aspect. It appears he was mentally ill, and thank God he only had a knife and not some sort of projectile weapon. (I say "only," but I am not attempting to undermine the seriousness of the attack.)
My concern is that, on this and other issues, we, and by we I mean the body politic in general, become so attached to our ideas and causes and slogans that we often forget that there are real people on the other end.
My parents and my sister would be off doing something, and I would think, "there are four different people here, each one of them doing different things, thinking different things, being ALIVE. Seeing, hearing, feeling, touching, experiencing things in their own little bubble of existence. And in the house next door, three more people. In the US, hundreds of millions. In the world, billions! Each of us going about our daily lives... How many of them are wondering the same thing I am? How many are hurt? How many are being loved? How many are happy? How many are sad?" It was an awesome feeling.
I can't do that so well anymore. It's becoming difficult to attach a person with the result of a tragedy.
I used to feel so much pain when I heard about an earthquake, or a tornado, or a hurricane, where hundreds of people died. For the same reasons I could feel awed by the company of four people. Thousands of sparks of life dissappearing in an instant. I would wonder, how many were going to do something special that day? How many were just going to do something normal? How many were young? How many were old? How many people close to them will they never speak to or hear or see or touch or love ever again?
It breaks your heart to think like that. Which is probably why I don't do it anymore.
[ June 08, 2001: Message edited by: Daniel ]
a)If if hadn't been little kids, there'd have been far fewer (if any) deaths. One stab wound from a charging psycho usually won't kill an adult, but a seven or eight year-old is a different story altogether.
b)The guy was stopped, and will be presumably committed to rehabilitation of some nature. There wasn't a stand-off, nor a hostage-taking, and the police weren't needed to stop the guy.
c)In Japan last year, there were a grand total of nine fatal stabbings last year. 9 out of 130 million people. Those are pretty good numbers. But the gun lobby tells us that when strict gun controls are imposed, deranged individuals will switch to knives and produce similar body counts. So if Japan dropped its stiff gun controls, we'd see 9 deaths from deranged shooters a year instead? Somehow I think that Japan's gun laws are saving more lives than that.
TOTALLY EFFEACTIVE gun control can be done! So none of that "impossible" non-sense!
Next time another shoot-out happened, stop the "bitching and complaining", and think about how it could very well been prevented by BANNING GUNS!
And for those "Government gonna walked all over us if we don't have guns" people, did the Japanese government walked all over their people?
How about "personal freedom" crowd? Well, if you value one "RIGHT" (*NOT freedom, because laws defined in such a way so people can own gun, therefore people have guns, not because it is one of those freedoms people are born with*) above the people that would being saved from shoot-out, then man, your priority should be straighten out.
For those "gonna have to defend myself" dudes, think about what made you have to defend yourself with a gun in the first place. Maybe it's because the "everyone should have one" constitution in the first place? Now, if you're a Japanese citizen, do you think you need a gun to protect yourself?
Constitutions are very much the same at every countries in the world, because constitutions by definition should define a person's FREEDOMS that he was born with. And just how many constitution in the world have that "everyone should own a gun" part? Plus constitution are suppose to be "amended" through the passage of time, now are we still affraid that King George gonna kick our asses? Or are we still in "wild wild west" where every single corners are unexplored frontier fill with hostale Indians?
[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
It's not the weapons. The Japanese were frightfully GOOD with weapons, a half-century ago. There's no reason to believe that there's been that drastic a change in that aspect of their culture.
quote:
TOTALLY EFFEACTIVE gun control can be done! So none of that "impossible" non-sense
In a country where guns are not already largely possessed by civilians of any type, yes. HERE, no.
quote:
stop the "bitching and complaining", and think about how it could very well been prevented by BANNING GUNS!
It could also have been prevented by banning lunatics. Or, if you want a real-world solution, actually ENFORCING the 10,000 existing gun laws, and a little discipline.
quote:
And for those "Government gonna walked all over us if we don't have guns" people, did the Japanese government walked all over their people?
An entirely different culture. From what I can gather, unlike our government, the Japanese governmental officials still believe that their primary duty is to their constituents, rather than their party or their 'vision.' On the other hand, I don't know how over-regulated the Japanese citizens are, do you?
quote:
(NOT freedom, because laws defined in such a way so people can own gun, therefore people have guns, not because it is one of those freedoms people are born with*)
The people who wrote the Constitution would disagree with that statement... or at least what I can decipher of it, because the language of it is starting to sound like a "Time Cube" rant. That's why they made it the SECOND most important Amendment (Right GUARANTEED to the People by which they insure all the others).
quote:
For those "gonna have to defend myself" dudes, think about what made you have to defend yourself with a gun in the first place.
Folks like you. j/k.
Well, for one, the KKK is marching in my town today. They're not SUPPOSED to be armed in any way or violent... but they're the KKK. And if there's five of them and one of me, I'd prefer to have the advantage should I need it. As long as there are people who don't care about the rights of others, and as long as there's a slightest possibility of a 'tyranny of the majority,' a wanna-be king, an Inquisition, etc., there will be a need to defend against them, and thusly a need for arms. PERIOD.
quote:
And just how many constitution in the world have that "everyone should own a gun" part?
Not enough. Might have prevented or ameliorated a lot of massacres of unarmed civilians by troops and/or rebels. Rwanda. Now let me ask you, how many countries have compulsory military service, in which people are licenced to keep their service weapons (often the much-over-maligned 'assault rifles') at home? I can think of The Swiss and the Israelis off the top of my head.
quote:
As long as there are people who don't care about the rights of others, and as long as there's a slightest possibility of a 'tyranny of the majority,' a wanna-be king, an Inquisition, etc.,
This from the guy who occasionally talks about what he will do when he's dictator? 
quote:
"In a country where guns are not already largely possessed by civilians of any type, yes. HERE, no."
Japanese have had successful experience in banning lethal weapons(samuri sword) owned by significant amount of the population in the past when the country under went reform.
So, if the Americans want to do it, then it's perfectly possible.
quote:
"It could also have been prevented by banning lunatics. Or, if you want a real-world solution, actually ENFORCING the 10,000 existing gun laws, and a little discipline."
Histroy has shown us again and again, when it come to REGULATIONS to control guns rather then BANNING guns, you guys are unsuccessful for most part.
quote:
"An entirely different culture. From what I can gather, unlike our government, the Japanese governmental officials still believe that their primary duty is to their constituents, rather than their party or their 'vision.' On the other hand, I don't know how over-regulated the Japanese citizens are, do you?"
Did you see "freedom fighters" here outside of Japan fighting for more "freedom" back home? I don't! Are they thoughts so regulated that they can't think for themselves? Then how about all the economy boom and technological boom that require FREE THINKING in the first place? And the part about how politic are different in Japan and USA, man, you just totally burned your own country!
quote:
"Folks like you. j/k. Well, for one, the KKK is marching in my town today. They're not SUPPOSED to be armed in any way or violent... but they're the KKK. And if there's five of them and one of me, I'd prefer to have the advantage should I need it. As long as there are people who don't care about the rights of others, and as long as there's a slightest possibility of a 'tyranny of the majority,' a wanna-be king, an Inquisition, etc., there will be a need to defend against them, and thusly a need for arms. PERIOD.
If we're comparing "developed" and "developing in later stage" countries, then I can tell you that hate crime mostly exist in white society. Hate crime are almost non-existence in Asian populations. So yeah, it's nothing to do with guns, but you guys should really do something about moral standard and education.
quote:
"Not enough. Might have prevented or ameliorated a lot of massacres of unarmed civilians by troops and/or rebels. Rwanda. Now let me ask you, how many countries have compulsory military service, in which people are licenced to keep their service weapons (often the much-over-maligned 'assault rifles') at home? I can think of The Swiss and the
Israelis off the top of my head."
We're comparing developed and developing in later stages countries, Rwanda does not come to the picture. As for countries like Israel, people knows the responsibilities of owning the gun, because of the military training they've went through. Frankly, commericals and school education is not enough to justify the right for ordinary citizen to owned guns.
The problem is not that America, or Japan, or Rwanda, or anywhere else is a violent country; the problem is that homo sapiens is a violent species.
Think about it for a moment. There are conflicts of interest in the world. It is natural for you to try and resolve those conflicts in a way beneficial to you. You employ force to do so. That 'force' may be diplomatic force (an oxymoron, perhaps), the use of a threat, or physical violence.
So, let's say someone decides to use physical violence to settle his little dispute. Given that he's going to do it, what are the chances of his inflicting fatal damage using:
(a) his bare hands?
(b) a knife or other stabbing weapon?
(c) a firearm?
Guns do kill people.
People kill people, too.
And they do it with a lot greater ease when they have guns to hand.
quote:
I can tell you that hate crime mostly exist in white society. Hate crime are almost non-existence in Asian populations
Well, I'm not exactly sure that's true. I mean, Over there, anyway. Can you back that statement up? Because from what I'm given to understand (at least, in my "History of East Asia" course,) Asians can be just as racist as anybody else. Ask the 'Dust Children,' (kids of White soldiers and Asian mothers.)
And as for 'hate crime is white,'... not according to the FBI. Their report on hate crime says that just about 48% of it is committed by whites. which means 52% isn't. Although, I admit, most of the rest isn't committed by Asians, I'd wager that that's simply because they don't make up a large chunk of the population here.
Hate does NOT have 'Property of the Caucasians' stamped on it.
And WHY doesn't Rwanda count? They're 'not developed?' What does that mean? "They don't value life like we do!" is what it sounds like... which is a racist thought at its core.
quote:
Japanese have had successful experience in banning lethal weapons(samuri sword) owned by significant amount of the population in the past when the country under went reform.
Yes, but the Japanese culture is far more accepting of authority than the US Culture. People here will resist. Strongly.
quote:
when it come to REGULATIONS to control guns rather then BANNING guns, you guys are unsuccessful for most part.
Only when it comes to enforcing the regulations. But we're changing that. Check out Operation Exile.
quote:
Did you see "freedom fighters" here outside of Japan fighting for more "freedom" back home? I don't!
What is the extent of your knowledge of Japanese politics? I haven't seen any 'freedom fighters' here, either, so the point is moot.
quote:
Are they thoughts so regulated that they can't think for themselves? Then how about all the economy boom and technological boom that require FREE THINKING in the first place? And the part about how politic are different in Japan and USA, man, you just totally burned your own country!
1. Ask the 'salaryman.'
2. What boom that wasn't initiated elsewhere?
3. No, I burned my government and its career politicians, not my country. There remains a difference.
quote:
Frankly, commericals and school education is not enough to justify the right for ordinary citizen to owned guns.
I agree. This is why TRAINING (military preferred, or otherwise professional) should be MANDATORY for all those who own guns. Even the NRA supports that.
quote:
The school rampage � and a series of other recent attacks � have shattered Japan�s longtime sense of public safety and have caused many to ask whether school administrators are reacting quickly enough to the rise in violence.
Separately on Saturday, police were searching for a man who stabbed and critically injured a sixth-grade boy as he played in a park in Fukuoka state, about 560 miles southwest of Tokyo, police said. No other details were immediately available.
In Ikeda, children described the attack as 15 minutes of sheer terror.
One girl, talking to Japanese reporters, said that during the attack, one of the students managed to somehow get onto the school�s public address system.
�There was a shriek,� the girl said. �Then I heard a cry for help.�
Other students said they saw teachers and hallways spattered with blood.
It's not isolated, it happens there too, so this idea of the perfect, passive society doesn't quite work. They may vent their emotions in another way (Anime, manga, hentai anyone? ) and they've always barred weapons from the comon folk, only samurai and their form of royalty (Lords, Shoguns, Emperor, etc) had access to anything beyond simple working and food knives.
Maybe that's why they're so much more capable of limiting weapons use? Cause few people ever had access to begin with.
[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: TLE ]
And if hate crime does exist in Asian countries, it exist mainly on a superficial level, it virtually stop at name calling, and almost never any physical confrontation.
We got no KKK equavalent, no "white power" parade, and certainly no legal hate literature that I'm aware off, and our media never have any racist term.
For Fo2 statement about white-asian cross child in Japan: Well, what do you expect? You kicked their butt big time, there's bond to be some dissatisfaction toward ANY Americans right after the war.
Now, why make a different before under-developed countries and developed countries you ask? Because more factors are at work. When we compare developed contries, there are more or less a set of standards we can expect, such as a require level of education, a require level of personal income, a require level of social services, etc. In under-developed countries such as Rewanda, such standards cannot be apply, and more complex factors are at work, therefore we cannot compare, so they are out of the picture of this discussion.
[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Problem between North Korean and South Korean is based on ideological differences not racial differences.
I didn't say hate crime are non-existance in Asian, I said ALMOST! And it is so comparing to North American or European standards. There are nothing even close to the equalvalent to organizations such as KKK or Neo-Nazis in Asian Nations.
Here's a example that you requested: Americans have a racist name for every single race on the planet and that's just English language alone, who knows how many other there are in European languages. Please name a few from Asian languages.
Not having a go, but...
I saw a program which was partly filmed in Tokyo. Looking at the people walking around, 99% of them seemed to be Asian-Japanese. Now, if you did a similar thing in, say, London, you'd be pushed to get two-thirds caucassian.
It's easier to avoid being racist when you haven't got anyone to be racist against. Racist problems in other countries aren't against the people they can't see (the English hating the French, the Welsh hating the English, everyone hating the US), but between blacks, whites, Asians, and monkeys, all living in close quarters.
Regarding banning guns in the US and how it's a different culture to Japan: The UK managed it. Admitadley nowhere nearly as effective as the US (Manchester, for example, being fairly bad), but I'd put money on us having comparitively less shootings than the US.
Fo2 I totally agree. The Japanese have a much higher regard for those things then most Americans do.
But that's the extend of it.
"ghwai low" is relatively harmless compare to their counterparts
We don't get, excuse my languages, nigger, chink, nip, etc.
And certainly, we don't get people saying "ghwai low" on public media, but same cannot be said for their counterparts.
Plus all those "black jokes", "Indian jokes", "Chinese jokes" and the list goes on and on...
never heard that one before...
(Thanks to the International Slang Dictionary, among others)
SANGOKUJIN:
" Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara recently told troops to be on the lookout for rioting foreigners taking advantage of earthquakes to get in a little bit of looting. "Atrocious crimes have been committed again and again by sangokujin and other foreigners," he said, using a derogatory Japanese slang term for Koreans and Taiwanese. "We can expect them to riot in the event of a disastrous earthquake.""
GAIJIN / GAI-KO:
""Gaijin" is a Japanese derogatory slang term for all non-Japanese , derived from the word "gaikokujin" or "foreigner."" Gai-ko" is even more derogatory.
From the Mitsubishi lawsuit a few years back:
"Japanese managers did not consider women equals, and believed women should not be working in a factory. He suggested that they should not look Japanese men in the eye or make eye contact, since this would be considered "insulting" to the Japanese."
GAISEN - pejorative term for a person who is physically attracted to non-Japanese people
BULEH - Indonesian derogatory term for whites
Da-Bi-Zi - Used in China
KAEK - Derogatory Thai term for East Indians
KALA - Asian Indian derogatory term for Blacks
KUROMBO - Used in Japan; considered very derogatory term for Blacks
You were saying...?
If this is what I think it is, then it's not a racist term, it can be used for any people
basic translation:
"stupid idiot"
man, that can be everybody!
I don't think Thai and Indonesia belong in that catagory.
I'm gonna check out the source with my Japanese friends before I make any comments on Japanese racist terms that you pointed out
If you can differentiate like that, it borders very close to racism, especially if that is the discerning factor by which you base your name calling, although I don't think it is.
Truly, it is more political than racial, but there has always been a major effort to maintain homogeneiety (is that a word?) especially in Korea and Japan. If I remember correctly, there were very strict social rules on marrying into the nationality. Foreigners (even from other parts of Asia) were considered outcasts.
Why? You won't even DEFINE what you mean by 'developing at later stages,' OR say WHY we should consider them different?
What, do people in countries that aren't economic powerhouses get a 'by' on being racist because they aren't 'developed?' BE, do you have any kind of idea what a load of cultural elitism THAT idea is?
Indonesia, Japan and China are just as developed as anybody else, and to say otherwise, I'm sure, they would find highly insulting.
I mean, you know they build skyscrapers in Indonesia, don't you? Out of steel and concrete, too! And they make their own plastic! They have industry! They have stock markets!
Race is a fuzzy concept. Strictly scientifically speaking, there are three races: Negroid, Causcoid and Mongoloid, plus a lot of argument over the ethnic origin of the Melanesian, Polynesian and Australian Aborigene peoples. However, most people would consider the indigenous peoples of the Americas as a different race to Asians; Indian-Indians, Saharan Africans and Hispanics non-Caucasian etc.
In any case, Japanese people are no more a different race to Koreans than Englishmen are to Germans.
I think that Japanese society is very violent. I get a sense that people are under enormous stress here and are always able to snap and become extremely violent if pushed far enough. I think that this is a a characteristic of Japanese society, in which self-restraint is considered admirable, but that rigteous fury when you have been pushed to far is also allowed. (See, for example, the story of the 47 Ronin.) The trouble is that people keep a lid on things so long that the only reaction to a perceived trespass are no reaction or an explosion. Recently, because of 10 years of recession, people seem to be under more stress than usual and more likely to explode with less provocation. This happens a lot among children and young persons nowadays. No one seems to know how to deal with friction in society except by exploding.
I don't know where people get the idea that Japanese are non-violent. This is only government policy.
I find the number of nine deaths by knife pretty hard to believe. You hear about knife attacks all the time in Tokyo.
Japanese society is also very racist/nationalist. I believe that many Japanese consider themselves superior to Koreans, Chinese and other Asians. This was part of the wartime indoctrination in an attempt to provide a foundation for Japan's conquest of Asia, but I think these ideas are still very prevalent. They certainly consider themselves genetically distinct from other Asians. Japanese are extremely concerned about racial purity.
There is certainly a history of hate crime in Japan. During the 1923 Earthquake, several thousand Koreans were killed by mobs and the police after false rumors that Koreans (who were brought to Japan as laborers after Korea was conquered) were poisoning the water supply. Koreans born in Japan must apply for citizen ship. Everytime there is trouble with North Korea, there are hate crimes against Koreans in Japan.
And when most of the population in a country is relatively poor, they shift their "anger" elsewhere, in our case, possibly hate crimes.
I remember just 2 or 3 years ago, there was mass riot in Indonesia to kill off Chinese decendants because the people "thought" the Chinese decendant are hogging all the resources and financial power.
An example of "developing country at later stage" would be Singapore, South Korea, HK and Taiwan, where almost every standards to qualify these countries to be a "developed" country are there, but some are still not there yet. Is Indoneia a developing country? Definately yes, but no where near the "later stage". Are they building high rise building? Yes, but only the few and elite can afford them.
An example of "developed" country in Asian would be Japan, who's also a member in G-7 (or is it G-10 now)
[ June 11, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
quote:
an under-developed country cannot afford the education for their citizen, and that make all the difference
Really? Did it take school to teach YOU not to be racist, or did you learn it at HOME like everybody else?
But everything you learn in school eventually give you the concept of not being a racist.
Of course, back when I went to grade school, they taught only FACTS and not opinions. School was not a social enginering workshop. Nor should it be.
A school is more a less a miniature community or society, in which we learn what are acceptable and what aren't an acceptable behaviours through books , courses or lectures.
We also learn how to best interact with peers, how to be popular, how to be nice, and how not to be "a pain in the ass" for others.
While some of the learning we do by ourselves, some others are "taught" by elders.
And you think school does not have the slightless trace of "social engineering"? What school do you go to? Does your teachers not teach you right and wrong, punish you for doing the wrong thing? You make school sound like a anarchy type of place, where total freedom flourish, no rules or guidelines are enforce, and everything goes. Man, let me tell you, that ain't a good education system. Hell, a place like that would be the exact replicate of "Lord of the fly"!
[ June 12, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Prior to starting 7th grade, I moved from Adelphi, Md to Columbia, Md and entered public school. Blacks, hispanics, whites ... wow! It was damn near overwhelming being with so many people who weren't white. Oh, sure, I'd known some black kids from my old neighborhood, but for the most part, the black kids and the white kids didn't play together -- except for the occasional social gathering our parent's dragged us to.
Not so at Wilde Lake Middle School. Did the teachers try and teach social behavior? Well, they didn't really have to, aside for arranging seating assignments so that you didn't have all the white kids on the left side, the latinos in the middle, and the blacks on the other side.
Social interaction between races is the key to eliminating racism (and, hopefully, homophobia, too). Look at the movie Remember the Titans. It was based on a true story -- except, in real life, the black kids and the white kids were best of friends and tight as a team could be after the football camp -- the movie stretches that out a bit.
That's my two-cents.
"We also learn how to best interact with peers..."
That's a rather difficult thing to explain to someone, considering that interaction is different w/ every single person...
"...how to be popular..."
That's a horrible horrible thing to teach a child.
"...how to be nice, and how not to be 'a pain in the ass' for others."
That's the sort of thing parents are supposed to teach their kids before they even start school.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Parents these days only exist to actually produce the child, and pay for its upkeep. That whole "interaction" and "responsibility" thing is for the rest of society to take care of...
And PUNISHING right and wrong acts is very VERY different between TEACHING the difference between right and wrong.
"Popular" is usually the OPPOSITE of "independent" and "intelligent." That's one thing school DID teach me.
Chill, dude. You sound like you're on the warpath I don't think BE means that these things are learned by being taught by teachers, but by learning by interaction with other kids.
My, aren't we bitter.
[ June 13, 2001: Message edited by: Daniel ]
I went to public school, and I survived just fine. I ALSO had strict but generally fair parents. They also happened to be teachers in another school district, so I got a double-shot of education.
As for my crack about 'popularity'.. it's not mine. It's my slightly older cousin's. She was a popular girl, but she had to pretend to be 'dumb' (she WAS quite bright as a child) to fit in with the others, and essentially sacrificed her education, a choice from which she has never recovered, and likely never will.
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The violent crime rate plunged 15 percent last year, the largest one-year drop in the 27-year history of a leading government crime survey.The Justice Department reported Wednesday that the rate of property crimes such as burglary and auto theft also fell -- down 10 percent from 1999.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' national crime victimization survey estimated there were 25.9 million violent and property crimes in 2000, nearly 3 million fewer than the year before. That was the lowest figure since the survey was begun in 1973, when it found an estimated 44 million crimes.
Now, I'm not SAYING that all these new states with carry laws, or these new programs like Operation Exile are the cause, but... 
[ June 13, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
But would these new laws have been introduced under the Clinton administration?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. Optimism like that is gonna get stabbed in back at 2 am in some dark alley behind Reliant Stadium. 
Last I heard, the crime rate had dropped about 53%.
quote:
But would these new laws have been introduced under the Clinton administration?
Under, as in DURING? Yes. Under, as in BY? No.
quote:
Or it could be all the cops out there on the streets
Would this be the thousands of new cops that Clinton was going to add, but didn't? Or do you mean that suddenly and without warning, police coverage and protection and efficiency suddenly jumped 25%?
Now, carry on...
The 'N' word is simply a regional coruption of 'Negro' which is simply the Spanish word for "Black" as well.
UNLESS you follow the theory that suggests that the 'N' word derived from 'niggardly' meaning lazy and shiftless, in which case it was originally applied to whites as much or more as to blacks.
Not to mention that in a lot of cases, cities couldn't find enough applicants who could pass the screening. Newsweek ran a blurb about Detroit's problem in police recruiting: essentially, only about 2% of those who applied were able to pass the background check, physical test, etc.
quote:
Sure Clinton couldn't keep that promise about 100,000 new cops. The Republican congress blocked the Federal funds. Bad 'pubies.
Actually, I'm not certain that was the only, or even a major, reason.
In any case, it's irrelevant, because the crime rate declined WITHOUT them.
quote:
In any case, it's irrelevant, because the crime rate declined WITHOUT them.
Then why bring it up?
Percent change 1999-2000
Violent crimes: -14.9%
Rape/sexual assault: -29.4%
Robbery: -11.1%
Assault: -14.2%
Personal theft: 33.3%
Source: Department of Justice
A table that my darling LA Times ran last night. Not really sure what "personal theft" means.
I didn't mention Clinton. I don't have to. Any reasonable person recognizes that major urban areas have moved to add thousands of police officers...such as in my case...Los Angeles.
I think that that more so than any "carry laws" worked to lower the violent crime rate.
AND it was a great chance to poke fun at Sol's vast member.
[ June 14, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Also, while Fo2 failed to mention it, Virginia's Governor when "Operation: Exile" was put into effect was ... a Democrat. The program was extended to the entire state WELL before the election that ousted him (same as the one that put Dubya in office).