Let's review, shall we? 313
Originally posted by StarhawkYip-Yap gives statistics that put the number of hate crimes committed in the U.S., Canada and Britain at approx. 990,000, 27 million and 6 million. He gives no source.
Yes it is if it causes people to be violent to one anotherFor the year 2005 (2006 stats wont be released until July of this year)
Hate Crime Rates
Canada around 30 per 1000 population cases nationwide.
US around 90 per 1000 population cases nationwide.
And just to prove that a nations history doesn't mean everything, Britain beats you guys at around 100 per 1000 population. Of course they just passed their national hate crime law this year as well.
Originally posted by StarhawkWhen asked for a source he states they come from unspecified "government agencies."
And see? Even you can't respond without an insult. I supposed the sources would be the respective government agencies that compiled the reports. If you want I can get the names of the reports themselves, but thats about the best I can do.
Originally posted by StarhawkThis is just here because I wanted to point out that's a pretty shitty library if it lacks such basic electronic resources.
The library doesn't have scanners.
Originally posted by FishyFishy gives the statistics from the FBI's UCR - a legitimate source, although it underestimates since it only factors in reported crime which law enforcement authorities subsequently report to the FBI.
Edit: Sorry about the double post...Oh about your nice statistics
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table2.htm
That is an actual source you can check from the FBI. Now if you would calculate that with the low estimate of 300,000,000 Americans you would reach the conclusion that 1 in 41881 American citizens is the victim of a hatecrime...
And that 1 in 35799 people are somehow affected by hatecrimes... That's far less then 30 in 10,000. Your statistics are bullshit made up by you... So not only do you not show sources for your claims, your lying.
Edit: I couldn't find the statistics for Canada, I could however find a nice government report about it... You will especially interested in the conclusion in section 2.6.2. Looks like Canada's hate crime rate of which we have seen no official figure just went up with a factor of 10...
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/canadian/canada/justice/disproportionate-harm/dh-002-02.html#2-6
Originally posted by StarhawkMay 9th by my clock.
Fine I will get them scanned and show them on here and then you guys can admit I'm right.
Originally posted by Starhawk
I said I would go to the library and scan the info.
Originally posted by Starhawkhmm Now does this mean the library does indeed have scanners? Perhaps it's not that shitty after all. Or Squawky just intends to steal said reports from unspecified "government agencies" from the library and scan them.
No, I have to go to the library and get them scanned, they are reference material, you can't take them out of the library.
Originally posted by StarhawkPartial credit. The FBI doesn't investigate every type of crime. However the FBI does gather statistics on said crime via the UCR.
The FBI do not investigate every type of crime in the US. The US department of justice may have better statistics then the FBI and I will provide the scans, sorry if I have real life things to do. I don't live off of KMC.
Originally posted by botankusPoints out the irony in not having the time to visit the library to use the imaginary scanners/steal reference material from the library and scan it, while still having ample time to repeatedly post about intending to scan it.
You've posted 200 times on KMC since May 9th. I guess I'm to assume that you're posting on your blackberry while you're getting jiggy with some hot chick at a club or something?
Originally posted by StarhawkApparently Starsquawk has friends. Surprising in itself. They're apparently willing to steal from the library, so there's no need to use the imaginary scanners. This was May 11th after it was pointed out he had stated the shitty library had no scanners, then began talking about scanning things at the library.
I called a friend who lives on campus and has a scanner, I gave him the info on where the reports are and he says he might be able to get up there tonight if not I'll go myself later.
Information I found through the magic of google from the the BJS, FBI and Statistics Canada:
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What I'm assuming Yip-Yap is squawking about: there are two major sources of U.S. crime statistics used, the Uniform Crime Report, which now encompasses the National Incident-Based Reporting System iirc, compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Crime Victimization Survey collected largely by the Bureau of the Census and published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Both the latter and the F.B.I. are agencies under the Department of Justice.The UCR publishes statistics based on reporting from law enforcement authorities, the NCVS has a survey-based methodology canvassing a representative sample of approx. 75,000 people biannually - which allows for a statistical estimation of unreported crime. Discrepancy between the two is mainly due to methodology.
The UCR puts hate crime incidents in 2005 at about 7,000-8,000, based on reports from law enforcement agencies. I'm unable to currently access any more recent NCVS data on hate crimes, but a report on the not very up to date BJS site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf
gives the BJS statistics from 2,000-2003, putting the figure at approx. 200,000 per annum, with a per 1000 figure of 0.8.Unless the hate crime rate has shot up 11,250% in the past 3 years it's not 90 per 1000 population.
I also eagerly await the scanning of said publication that states hate crime in the U.S. as 90 per 1000 population per annum, which would amount to 27 million cases of hate crime per year.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotTo further that the U.K. Home Office website:
If you fabricated it, then it is your report. 313From Statistics Canada, the General Social Survey 1999 figures for hate crime:
http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/listpub.cgi?catno=85-551-XIE1999000 Click pdf, ref: pp27
Approximately 200,000 cases, excluding vandalisms as the BJS report excluded vandalisms in it's per 1,000 population figure. This report gives a per 1,000 population figure of 9, per annumMore recent figures are only available for a fee. But unless they've shot up 300% in the last 6 years, it's not 30 per 1000.
Originally posted by StarhawkMay 13th.
LOL I see people are still impatient, Ill try to have those scans by the end of the day.
To summarize,
According to official statistics:
Country || Hate crimes absolute || Hate crimes per 1000 pop
U.S.A. || ~200,000 || 0.8
Canada || ~200,000 || 9
U.K. || ~260,000 || 4
c.f. Eclipstar's "bullshatistics":
Country || Hate crimes absolute || Hate crimes per 1000 pop
U.S.A. || 27 million || 90
Canada || 990,000 || 30
U.K. || 6 million || 100
Preview of likely next reply from Starclipso:
" your (sic) all impatient. LLLOZL. Ill (sic) scan it by the end of the day."
End scene.
Well, most of the 30 pages of posts is just:
"Post the source."
Squawk: "I'm going to get it scanned by the end of the day."
"Why do you keep posting if you haven't got your source yet."
Squawk: "LOLZZZ. Your impatient. I haven't had time yet."
"Yeah, but then why do you keep posting if you haven't got your scans."
Squawk: "I'm going to get it scanned by the end of the day. LOLZZZ. Your impatient. I haven't had time yet."
Next day:
"Have scans yet?"
Squawk: "I'm going to get it scanned by the end of the day. LOLZZZ. Your impatient. I haven't had time yet. I don't live on KMC."
"Then don't post if you don't have anything."
Squawk: "Blah blah blah rights. Your impatient. I'm mature. LOLZ"
"Why do you keep posting if you haven't got your source yet."
Squawk: "I'm a law student."
Rinse and repeat.
The above review of BS claims, filters most of that out. 😊
I really want to try out one of those imaginary scanners.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well, most of the 30 pages of posts is just:"Post the source."
Squawk: "I'm going to get it scanned by the end of the day."
"Why do you keep posting if you haven't got your source yet."
Squawk: "LOLZZZ. Your impatient. I haven't had time yet."
"Yeah, but then why do you keep posting if you haven't got your scans."
Squawk: "I'm going to get it scanned by the end of the day. LOLZZZ. Your impatient. I haven't had time yet."Next day:
"Have scans yet?"
Squawk: "I'm going to get it scanned by the end of the day. LOLZZZ. Your impatient. I haven't had time yet. I don't live on KMC."
"Then don't post if you don't have anything."
Squawk: "Blah blah blah rights. Your impatient. I'm mature. LOLZ"
"Why do you keep posting if you haven't got your source yet."
Squawk: "I'm a law student."Rinse and repeat.
The above review of BS claims, filters most of that out. 😊
I really want to try out one of those imaginary scanners.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well, most of the 30 pages of posts is just:"Post the source."
Squawk: "I'm going to get it scanned by the end of the day."
"Why do you keep posting if you haven't got your source yet."
Squawk: "LOLZZZ. Your impatient. I haven't had time yet."
"Yeah, but then why do you keep posting if you haven't got your scans."
Squawk: "I'm going to get it scanned by the end of the day. LOLZZZ. Your impatient. I haven't had time yet."Next day:
"Have scans yet?"
Squawk: "I'm going to get it scanned by the end of the day. LOLZZZ. Your impatient. I haven't had time yet. I don't live on KMC."
"Then don't post if you don't have anything."
Squawk: "Blah blah blah rights. Your impatient. I'm mature. LOLZ"
"Why do you keep posting if you haven't got your source yet."
Squawk: "I'm a law student."Rinse and repeat.
The above review of BS claims, filters most of that out. 😊
I really want to try out one of those imaginary scanners.
he pulled the EXACT same shit in the pedos vs murderers thread and vanished. when later confronted he just brushed it off claiming to have forgotten (apparently remiding him was impossible as we tried)
yip yap bark squark yippity yappity yank my willy. and thats that.