[wiley.com]

I can not open the actual document without paying for it — only the summary is available.

"(1) young black males are sentenced more harshly than any other group, (2) race is most influential in the sentencing of younger rather than older males, (3) the influence of offender's age on sentencing is greater among males than females, and (4) the main effects of race, gender, and age are more modest compared to the very large differences in sentencing outcomes across certain age-race-gender combinations."

It may very well be, the harsher-sentenced folks really do commit "harsher" crimes — or under more judge-infuriating circumstances (such as with particular brutality or against a particularly sympathetic victim, under influence of drugs, or by being repeat offenders). Also, being poorer on average, they might be unable to secure as good a lawyer.

The giant elephant in the room, which various race-baiters refuse to acknowledge, is that Asians should be just as much (if not more) a target of the "Whitey" racism as Blacks. And yet, there aren't even any allegations of them being targeted by neither cops nor judges. They also study so well, some universities even choose to impose harsher requirements on them to get a more "balanced" student body (a truly racist practice too)...

So, no — until I see actual statistics showing certain races punished harsher for the same crimes, I'm not going to accept that assertion on face-value. My comment demanding proof was downmodded and OP's is currently at "5 Insightful" — which means, lots of people saw the exchange, but not one was able to offer the evidence I asked for... Not one person.

No, I won't.

Well, if you are unable to substantiate your assertions, then don't be surprised, if your arguments are summarily discarded — with prejudice and even an occasional glee.

People "see it" or they "don't see it."

I would have thought, Hans Christian Andersen took care of this particular line of reasoning 200 years ago or so...

I did not include the link in an attempt to provide statistics.

Right, you didn't. Out of politeness, I assumed, that you tried to, but failed...

so much evidence that had been published in so many years

Once again, if "so much evidence" really existed, you would've had no problem offering links to some of it. Yet, you did not. The most obvious reason is — no such evidence actually exists. Thanks for playing.

In California, the law said that if you were within 3 years you had a misdemeanor, and outside that a felony, at least as pertains to statutory rape. I became sexually active at 15, so this was fairly relevant information

The counter-point I'm making is that if you take away that right, shit will change and fast.

Since I already brought it up and some idiot already cried Godwin -

Right before they started rounding up and exterminating "undesirables," the National Socialist Party passed laws banning those groups from possessing weapons. We all know how this story ends.

So, no, today we don't have to use our armaments in order for the Second Amendment to serve its purpose; the government knowing that we are a well-armed society seems to be enough for the moment. I pray that doesn't change for the worse.

No problem. Even 32-bit systems will let you use 2GB per process.

I wear my seatbelt and have homeowner's insurance, too, but not because I'm scared - because I'm smart.

Break-in-and-murders have been going through the roof around here.

If you lived in an area where bear attacks were on the rise, wouldn't you think it smart to get some anti-bear spray and learn how to use it? Or would you take your chances, to avoid causing some ignorant asshole to claim that you're "scared?"

5-year-olds and their mental contemporaries, of which I am not a member.

Hell yea. My first ride was a vintage truck with power nothing, and the teeth on my syncro's were completely toast, so I know exactly how much skill and thought has to go into driving a vehicle like that.

Well, OK, but I'm going to have to insist that the vacuum be provided by a driver operated hand-pump. Can't be having people slack off.

OK, so 15 years later Australia has less violent crime. I'm sure that's a real comfort to the people who lived there from 1996-2000, right after the gun ban was enacted, and violent crime skyrocketed.

For the record, the US has also had a "steady decline" in violent crime over the past 15 years, and we didn't ban guns. So much for that hypothesis.

For centuries people who wanted a precision item made would have to go to either a master craftsman or industrial manufacturing facility; being able to 3D print aforementioned items in your garage is a 21st century phenomenon.

Point being, if we can build a computerized additive manufacturing machine in our home sheds, it's not unreasonable to think that the same society could reasonably build and operated computerized smokeless powder production facilities in the same space.

I could live with that, just like how I could live with the stuff I make with my self-built 3D printer not being top quality merchandise.

Yea, no we're not. Nobody in government give half a fuck what "people like [me]" think, outside election season. And even then, since"people like [me]" don't contribute millions to their campaigns, they still don't really care what we have to say.

FYI, I don't care about "morality" in taxation. I'm merely pointing out that for the majority of American history, until 1913, "taxable income" was defined as "profits made as a result of business transactions," and did not include labor exchanged for money or goods. Oh, and also that the ratification of the 16th Amendment has been called into question repeatedly, and said question has never been answered with more than a stern "stop bringing that up."

If you have a problem with any of the historical facts I provided, build a time machine, rather than rant at the messenger.

Um, you do know that "dubious" means "questionable," not "difficult to understand," right?

Also because most of his income is from "capital gains" which are only subject to a 15% Capital Gains tax.

So, apparently cheaters DO prosper.

Presuming by "everybody" you mean parties in power, then they actually do all do it. Just look at almost any news story about government agents interacting with non-government subjects.

You. Your exact words were

Feel free to continue backpedaling wildly.

Next time you see someone making a big deal about gun deaths, point out all the other things that kill far, far more people, then see how they react. No, most people won't come out directly and say that, but the implication is pretty damn obvious.

And they will ignore the fact that most of the people who get shot and killed in said confrontations are criminals. I presume this is because they think a rapist or murderer's right to life trumps the right of another person to defend themselves from rapists and murderers; haven't seen a decent counter argument, anyway.

Actually, they aren't - for example, the UK only counts a death as a homicide statistic if the killer is convicted in court. But that doesn't stop people from blindly making the comparison anyway, because they think it strengthens their argument (when reality couldn't be further from the truth).

Also, you can't honestly deny that regardless of how other countries define "rape" and "violent crime," those numbers skyrocketed after certain nations, such as Australia, enacted gun bans.

Yea, probably for a lot of reasons: 1, Canada has a different history and culture than the US does. 2, Canada has a much smaller population, and 3 of the people who do live there, many of them live far removed from large population centers, which tend to be the areas with the most violent crime.

Consider this: If you didn't count Detroit and Chicago (cities with strict gun bans, BTW) in the statistics, America would be about as violent as Sweden. Take a couple more major cities out of the mix (STL, LA), and we're one of the most non-violent nations on the planet. Ever.

Totally agree, though I will point out that your statement here applies to every side of every argument.