NM11046

I think you misunderstood - indeed it's been written by a Harvard Econ professor but the reason it's not valid yet is it is a "Working Paper" and because it's only a working paper (meaning he's penned it but there's been no peer review or analysis of his data) makes it not yet valuable to those who want clean data or who truly want to statistically see a trend. Might prove to be totally on point, but honestly I can't imagine a peer review wouldn't ask for a larger dataset reflective of the real population at a minimum.

There you go. Snopes does a pretty thorough job here in its coverage. Well, that settles it.. snopes says it is false. Snopes, one of the more liberal sites, quickly tries to disprove this study by saying it was unvetted.. Not the least bit surprised Any truly scientific information has to be vetted and peer reviewed. Otherwise anybody can create numbers that prove what they want to show. So it may not be false, but it takes more than a week to do a proper trial and get it reviewed and published. The fact that this guy started the paper in the last few weeks is itself telling.

Here is perhaps a more fair look at a dataset - 18 different sources, academic studies, legal rulings and in depth reporting. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

You guys are ridiculous. Why wouldn't this matter or not matter to "some" people? Did you ever think that perhaps the way you communicate your ideas and comments is what turns people off, not the actual content? You're both combative. Now, regarding the "study" it was 10 departments looked at in only 3 states. In the medical/scientific world we'd say that the study wasn't powered to show a statistically significant outcome. The numbers are just too small. How many actual incidents did they analyze? Was it taken from police reports alone? Wouldn't that make the data less than objective? If it's a good dataset that information should be readily available. I'd be interested in the data being compiled on a larger scale across the US. I think the information that would come out of that would be important. It would also uncover if there are states or cities in particular that perform better than or worse than the national average and that too would be important to know as we look to identify how to go about solving this issue, if indeed it's determined by the data that there is one. Looking at information like this takes the emotion out of it, and allows conclusions to be made based on fact alone. It's why allowing the CDC or another entity to collect and analyze shooting information is so very important.

Oh, so now constitutional rights matter to you? but yes, if you are part of the group that is in favor of Sharia law, then yes, your citizenship will be revoked. They absolutely matter - you weren't understanding that this was a hypothetical question posed to you. And that your irrational blanket statements don't hold up when you take away the "brown people from another country" factor. When you feel overwhelmed by facts and pertinent data that disagrees with your opinion you seem to strike out at people. I won't take it personally, but I won't play your game either.

Great, great guy.#BOTHSIDES Funny, you want to deeper gun laws, even banning them, to stop the deaths but yet you have no problem letting these people into this country without being checked out? lol, gotta love this mindset. Think about this for a minute.. further restrict law abiding citizens, but give free access for those who have potential to kill massive groups of Americans... Anyone has the potential to massive groups of Americans. That's not exclusive to Muslims. So do we have to test everyone?For a country so averse to government surveillance, a lot of us sure don't seem to mind if it's done to the scary brown people... What other groups are killing people like Muslims? none!! EDIT: haha, no you're are just for limiting Americans rights.. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/ What other groups kill like muslims (so much ignorance in that statement, but I'll bite again)? Brazilians kill far more people than terrorists, some 50k, where's your outrage for them? Mexicans kill more than ISIS did in two years in Iraq (almost 20k per year). Americans kill more Americans than ISIS does in a year (about 12k). Where's your outrage for these groups? They're are vile, barbaric people. Can we ban Americans from America?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate so much ignorance in this statement.. Pot - kettle.

No need to be condescending 84 - I'm quite aware that there is islamic terrorism and terrorists actually do exist. Believe it or not I prefer to wait until an investigation uncovers the reasons for the attack (if any) and background of the attacker. My question to put it bluntly, was why do people like you look at any event that results in mass tragedy and automatically call it terrorism and go on diatribes about the evils of a religion and faults of immigration and etc. Your response was actually proving the point of my question.

Let me dumb this down - if you are a practicing muslim and a US Citizen, you will be tested according to Newt's proposal ... how does that trump (or does it) your 1st Amendment Rights as a US Citizen?

lol, not what he said.. but don't let that stop you. "We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported," The direct quote of controversy. Right, he was talking about Muslims, not all American citizens. OMG.

AND better yet - some of those investigations will turn up nothing. And you know what, there are literally hundreds of ongoing FBI investigations of everyday people taking place in every state as well. Some of whom (SHOCKER) are not muslims. I don't doubt there can potentially be people that claim to be muslim that are radicalized and living in every state of the union. The fact that "So many ignorant fools who seem to have their heads up their own .....!" believe that this means all muslims are radicalized is defined as a phobia.

I feel like this conversation is circular --- a few of you should create another thread where you can discuss how the muslims are all bad and are going to take over the US and kill us all and the rest of us can have a practical discussion.

Quickness and Speed are two different things. But what do I know. The scout most likely meant that he doesn't have world class speed, and does not use speed as his primary way to get open, rather a combination of physicality, speed, and hand/foot work. Most definitely they're different. And in my opinion, being quick involves what you described (footwork, physicality etc). Fast is straight-out clock speed on a 40.

In my family we'd potentially say he's "quick, not fast".

I don't think you'd get a lot of support from police officers on that. That sounds extremely dangerous for them. You'll see us turn in our resignations in droves............. Have you ever had to use/fire your gun BigRedIowan? Nope, thank god, I've come close several times though and yes I've been shot at. Super s*^tty feeling. I can relate to that - was held up at gunpoint, and shot at afterward, and it was scary. I also came out of that situation being 100% sure that even if any of the 3 of us had been carrying a gun it wouldn't have changed a thing.

I'm having a hard time of late accepting that any time there are people killed in a horrific way we are quick to label it "terrorism". The latest example being the truck accident in Nice last night. Was this a terrifying event? Yes. Was it terrorism? We don't know yet, but I don't think so. Earliest reports say it was a local man from Nice, a "petty criminal" and he acted alone. (to be fair, I wouldn't qualify the Dallas Police shootings as a terrorism attack either). In my mind, the definition of terrorism includes a key component, and that is that there is a specific motivation to do wrong in the name of a group or radical idea. Not one or more crazy people that commit an act of aggression. I feel that when news stations and newspapers label any event as a "terrorist attack" they do so to get watchers/clicks and the result is even more polarizing to our US political discussions. They then get a whole group of people on the bandwagon (whether it be about religion, gun control, etc) and in the long run we likely motivate others to commit heinous crimes in order to go down in a blaze of glory. And on top of this, the real terrorists get credit by default for continuing to impact the world negatively. So my question for discussion - when did any mass casualty event become defined as a terroristic attack? Am I thinking about the word "terrorism" in a way that others don't? What would be a more appropriate way to report on these circumstances?

Love that you're watching the town halls and saw the CNN event - looking forward to your recaps as they come Dude.

I don't think you'd get a lot of support from police officers on that. That sounds extremely dangerous for them. You'll see us turn in our resignations in droves............. Have you ever had to use/fire your gun BigRedIowan?

No question in mind LOM, just wanted to congratulate you and thank you for keeping the board members in mind.

Bold suggestion BRB - I like it. Or even if one of the two officers in the car carries and the other doesn't. With this of course I'd be advocating for something to be done to limit the potential for regular Joe's to carry (legally or not).

It's actually one guy - or at least there is one KState guy who has at least 4-5 accounts under different names that he uses to stalk and bother our recruits. I think his ex-wife must have been a Husker. He's a bitter, sad man.

I think they'll partner well - since Trump is open to feedback and new ideas and is known for getting insight from people who might be knowledgeable about a topic. Did you miss the sarcasm emoji? For Pence to advise trump on these subjects, would be for Pence to tell him he's full of crap on major issues Trump has campaigned on. Well, I guess he's basically come out and said banning all muslims was just....."Haha.....just kidding". So, maybe he can do it on these issues too. If he does that, I'm sure all his followers will just lap it up and completely ignore that he just did a completely 180 on his agenda during the primaries. But...hey....he "tells it like it is". I think you missed my sarcasm emoji. I honestly don't know who he could work well with and who wouldn't absolutely be a 180 from all that he's claimed during this campaign (as that seems to evolve depending on his mood)

I think they'll partner well - since Trump is open to feedback and new ideas and is known for getting insight from people who might be knowledgeable about a topic.

curious, why the Trump reference? I'm guessing because he and the conservative party have made a point of talking about the horrors of "being PC" and that it's ruined the country. That was last week Trump. This week Trump demands everyone, including Supreme Court Justices to remain above the fray and speak only out of the kindness of their hearts; otherwise, apologies must be issued. Or, is that only when comments are directed at him? #Thin-skinnedTrump2016 #BuildTheWallAroundYourFeelings Only when directed at him. Unless they're mexican and talking about muslims. Or if they're bimbos talking about the KKK. Or if they're gay and jewish and talking about a handicapped person.