Obama Doesn't Remember How Big the Debt Is

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Oh, I don't know. (I don't watch Fox at all, btw. Another stereotype shot to hell, eh?) Let's say people you happen upon as you drive through the average American neighborhood (I know, I know, define "average" ) and ask their opinion of crime in America, early release of violent criminals, perception of safety compared with previous eras, etc., and I think you'll find most are in agreement with what I've described. Or to narrow it down a little more, I don't know anyone of at least middle-age who hasn't been touched in some way by crime in their own life. Didn't used to be that way, and they know it.

So, in other words, you have nothing to back up your assertion about what "people" believe, and the only way I can disprove you is to drive around and do man on the street interviews? Are you being serious here? What kind of debating is this? You claim that "people" feel a certain way, and I'm still not certain what you mean by "people", and this should just stand as fact unless these street interviews yield different opinions? How many different opinions must we find? 10? 100? What will it take to show you that "people" don't necessarily feel the same way that you do?

Can you try to take this discussion a little more seriously please? This is just ridiculous.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

So now that you know that violent crime is in fact down, will you take it upon yourself to educate all of these people you encounter who think otherwise? In the spirit of fighting ignorance, and all.

Or are you content to sneer "well, you guys might be right but everyone I know is wrong!"

It may be down from its peak, but for those of us who lived in this country during a more civilized time - you know, a time when running in the halls and chewing gum in class were the serious offenses at school, almost nobody's kid was a drug addict, and crime was something most people only read about in the newspapers - I'm afraid the fact that crime isn't as bad now as it was at its zenith is scant consolation.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Your back must be sore, because you just carried those goalposts a really, really long way.

[Lobohan]

SA, when you saw Star Wars, were you concerned about all those spaceship fights happening in the inner cities?

[Enderw24]

What year or years would you consider to be " a more civilized time" for America?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Sounds pretty factual to me.

It isn't. I should have also quoted this line about your "illustration:"

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I'm afraid your transparent Reagan-era dodge just doesn't stand up to the reality of current day life in the U.S.

So were you saying 48 Hours reflects reality, or how people feel about reality? Because you said my comment about crime rates "doesn't stand up to reality," which sounds a lot like saying it is not true.

People don't know or care what the crime rate was 20 years ago

So is your claim actually that people are running on outrage and are badly misinformed about the crime rate, and believe that stuff like this is commonplace?

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I think even some modern day liberals think it's pretty stupid when [....] their wives or daughters get raped or killed by some some asshole with rape and murder on his rap sheet and who is out of prison before he's even thirty.

Because at this point it's no longer clear what 48 Hours is supposed to illustrate.

[Enderw24]

You know what? Scratch that request. I get that you think because your childhood was idellic and peaceful, you can extrapolate that to everyone, like you've done time and time again in thread after thread including this one. And I get that if it weren't for those goddamned hippies with their long hippie hair and goddamned hippie music all liberalling up the place, we'd still be living in a black and white Leave it to Beaver world and it would be perfect, thankyouverymuch.

You want to live in your little bubble? Go ahead. The rest of adults will be making informed decisions using facts.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by SA

You guys love to claim the crime rate is down but I don't know anyone who believes it.

How about the FBI? Do they count?

Because they're the ones who published those stats I posted a day or two ago.

Originally Posted by Enderw24

That's lovely. The rest of us were talking about data.

Do you have any data?

As Ender implies, you use examples to illustrate data. OK, maybe not if 'you' is Starving Artist, but that's how it's supposed to work. Because otherwise, it's "here's an example of something whose actual incidence rate is something I don't care about."

[Hentor the Barbarian]

The risk you run if you see television as actually descriptive of reality is that you end up with a very skewed, distorted, myopic worldview that is at odds with the reality that most everyone else is familiar with. The First 48 is not reality. It only depicts homicide investigation and only for entertainment purposes. It does not tell anything about the nationwide prevalence of homicide.

Did you think that the crime rate went down because Law and Order was cancelled?

But yeah, I like to think back on those halcyon days when my pa and I went down to the fishing hole every week, him whistling that same old tune he always whistled for 23 seconds. I had these two old favorite rocks that I liked to pick up and throw into the water. We didn't have any drug problem to worry about, and no black people causing us problems. Heck, even the drunks were more endearing than problematic.

(For some reason, thinking about SA and this new information about how he gauges reality, I'm reminded of the original premise of the HBO show "Dream On".)

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

The risk you run if you see television as actually descriptive of reality is that you end up with a very skewed, distorted, myopic worldview that is at odds with the reality that most everyone else is familiar with. The First 48 is not reality. It only depicts homicide investigation and only for entertainment purposes. It does not tell anything about the nationwide prevalence of homicide.

Did you think that the crime rate went down because Law and Order was cancelled?

But yeah, I like to think back on those halcyon days when my pa and I went down to the fishing hole every week, him whistling that same old tune he always whistled for 23 seconds. I had these two old favorite rocks that I liked to pick up and throw into the water. We didn't have any drug problem to worry about, and no black people causing us problems. Heck, even the drunks were more endearing than problematic.

(For some reason, thinking about SA and this new information about how he gauges reality, I'm reminded of the original premise of the HBO show "Dream On".)

There is a host of assumptions in that post that have nothing to do with what I think or the points I'm trying to make. Plus there's quite a bit of textual sleight-of-hand that attempts to set up points I'm not trying to make in order to shoot them down. The First 48 most certainly is reality. It isn't all of reality, but no one thing is. But the perps are real, their crimes are real, their rap sheets for violent crimes including previous convictions for rape and murder are real, and the fact that they are not the only ones that have been turned loose prematurely upon society is real. To the extent that The First 48 casts light on a particular problem, it does so accurately.

Why don't I hear this kind of equivocation when 60 Minutes does an expose on some evangelist or corporation, or when only one Tea Partier out of hundreds is filmed carrying a sign with a racist message, or when Republican politician says his goal is to block Obama and suddenly that applies to every Republican in the country?

It's disingenuous at the very least to try to dodge the very real circumstances illuminated by shows such as The First 48 by claiming they don't encompass all aspects of life. The important thing is that it shows that a very real problem that a lot of people are unhappy about does indeed exist. And, having watched Robert Blake interviewed on TV last night, that's the name of that tune!

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

There is a host of assumptions in that post that have nothing to do with what I think or the points I'm trying to make. Plus there's quite a bit of textual sleight-of-hand that attempts to set up points I'm not trying to make in order to shoot them down. The First 48 most certainly is reality. It isn't all of reality, but no one thing is. But the perps are real, their crimes are real, their rap sheets for violent crimes including previous convictions for rape and murder are real, and the fact that they are not the only ones that have been turned loose prematurely upon society is real. To the extent that The First 48 casts light on a particular problem, it does so accurately.

Why don't I hear this kind of equivocation when 60 Minutes does an expose on some evangelist or corporation, or when only one Tea Partier out of hundreds is filmed carrying a sign with a racist message, or when Republican politician says his goal is to block Obama and suddenly that applies to every Republican in the country?

It's disingenuous at the very least to try to dodge the very real circumstances illuminated by shows such as The First 48 by claiming they don't encompass all aspects of life. The important thing is that it shows that a very real problem that a lot of people are unhappy about does indeed exist. And, having watched Robert Blake interviewed on TV last night, that's the name of that tune!

Likewise, does this now give us permission to use those 60 Minutes exposes on corporations, or pictures of a Tea Partier carrying a sign with a racist message, as showing that there is a very real problem with corporate America and the Tea Party? If you want to use select views as proof of a wider systemic problem, then the other side can too and you can never complain about it ever again.

Or we can just dismiss this nonsense as a tu quoque, and admit that anecdotes don't equate data, even if there are enough anecdotes to fill an entire television season with scary stories.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

Likewise, does this now give us permission to use those 60 Minutes exposes on corporations, or pictures of a Tea Partier carrying a sign with a racist message, as showing that there is a very real problem with corporate America and the Tea Party? If you want to use select views as proof of a wider systemic problem, then the other side can too and you can never complain about it ever again.

Or we can just dismiss this nonsense as a tu quoque, and admit that anecdotes don't equate data, even if there are enough anecdotes to fill an entire television season with scary stories.

I've never claimed that anecdotes equal "data." That's you guys' dodge. And plenty of you do exactly what you're trying to suggest you don't, which is to broad brush Tea Partiers, corporations and politicians based on the behavior of just a few, and I don't hear a peep out of any of the rest of you. I'm at a loss to know what you think I'm broad-brushing with my anecdotes vs. data though. I'm talking about people who get out of prison early after committing murder who then go on to commit more murders, and criticizing the practice that allows that. So far as I can recall I haven't painted anyone but those involved with that brush.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

It isn't all of reality, but no one thing is.

Right: statistics aren't all of reality, they're just a fact-based depiction of what is happening at a broad societal level. And The First 48 isn't all of reality either, it's a factual depiction of one crime intended to keep you watching TV for an hour. If someone is well informed of the statistics, they can make informed statements about general trends at a national or state level. If someone gets his information from The First 48, he can say the facts don't reflect "reality" and that people are living in fear of repeat violent offenders because there are lots of those on The First 48.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I've never claimed that anecdotes equal "data."

Quoting again:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Oh, please. Take a look at some current day crime shows like 48 Hours and take note of how many murders are committed by assholes with violent crimes, including rape and murder on occasion, who are legally out of prison and still relatively young men.
[...]
So sorry, but I'm afraid your transparent Reagan-era dodge just doesn't stand up to the reality of current day life in the U.S.

I asked this earlier, but please explain what you meant about "the reality of current day life" if you didn't mean that this is what's happening on a large scale. Of course you also did what you could to disparage the actual facts:

You guys love to claim the crime rate is down but I don't know anyone who believes it. But just for shits and giggles, lets assume it is.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Oh, I don't know. (I don't watch Fox at all, btw. Another stereotype shot to hell, eh?) Let's say people you happen upon as you drive through the average American neighborhood (I know, I know, define "average" ) and ask their opinion of crime in America, early release of violent criminals, perception of safety compared with previous eras, etc., and I think you'll find most are in agreement with what I've described. Or to narrow it down a little more, I don't know anyone of at least middle-age who hasn't been touched in some way by crime in their own life. Didn't used to be that way, and they know it.

I haven't been.
But I agree with you about how people think, and there is a reason for it, which we teach in our behavioral economics class. If you plot the perception of the occurrence of certain events with their actual occurrence rates, you get a big disconnect. For instance, most people think the murder rate is higher than the suicide rate, while the exact opposite is true. The reason is that people judge probabilities based on the availability of information on the event. Suicides are seldom reported in the news, murders are frequently reported, so people think murders are more common. The same is true of all sorts of natural disasters.
Many local papers run snippets about juicy crimes far, far away, so it is not surprising that people think these things are more common than they are.

When I was in elementary school in the glory days of the late '50s, lots of parents thought the juvenile delinquents (who were covered a lot in movies and the press) were a scourge that would overwhelm decent society.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Right: statistics aren't all of reality, they're just a fact-based depiction of what is happening at a broad societal level. And The First 48 isn't all of reality either, it's a factual depiction of one crime intended to keep you watching TV for an hour. If someone is well informed of the statistics, they can make informed statements about general trends at a national or state level. If someone gets his information from The First 48, he can say the facts don't reflect "reality" and that people are living in fear of repeat violent offenders because there are lots of those on The First 48.

Or that they are disgusted and outraged by the fact that these people are on the streets in the first place, taking people's lives and laying waste to the happiness of their familes and loved ones, depriving people of their mates and children of their parents. And if they that disgust and outrage is increased by the belief that what they're seeing is only the tip of the iceberg I think you'd be hard pressed to prove them wrong, although the actual numbers aren't as important as the fact that it's happening in the first place. Why are you guys defending this practice? Do you think it's just peachy that these assholes are getting sprung like they are? Is it a practice you approve of? What's the deal, I can't imagine why you're defending it.

Originally Posted by Voyager

I haven't been.

You're pretty lucky then. Either that or you live in a bubble outside the norm. I live in white bread flyover country and everyone I know of at least middle-age has had their house broken into or lost a child (or children) to drugs and the tragedies that go with that, or had them die, or been touched by crime in some other way. I might find the same prevalence among younger people too, but at my age I don't associate closely with that many.

Originally Posted by Voyager

But I agree with you about how people think, and there is a reason for it, which we teach in our behavioral economics class. If you plot the perception of the occurrence of certain events with their actual occurrence rates, you get a big disconnect. For instance, most people think the murder rate is higher than the suicide rate, while the exact opposite is true. The reason is that people judge probabilities based on the availability of information on the event. Suicides are seldom reported in the news, murders are frequently reported, so people think murders are more common. The same is true of all sorts of natural disasters. Many local papers run snippets about juicy crimes far, far away, so it is not surprising that people think these things are more common than they are.

That's interesting and enlightening to know. Food for thought I'll admit. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Voyager

When I was in elementary school in the glory days of the late '50s, lots of parents thought the juvenile delinquents (who were covered a lot in movies and the press) were a scourge that would overwhelm decent society.

I was in that age group and knew some of those guys. There weren't that many of them, and they didn't come close to being the menace that street and drug gangs present today, whether in numbers or viciousness.

[digs]

Originally Posted by pkbites

It's at 2:02.

The freaking President of the United States isn't sure how much our nations debt is.

If Mitt Romney (or John Mccain or George W. Bush for that matter) had stated they didn't know how much our national debt is, the media and 95% of the dopers here would have ripped them to shreds. Instead the silence is deafening!

Well, I'm glad to see that I can still get annoyed at both sides. And I'll make fun of anyone, regardless of party affilliation. Yeah, stupid thing to say. Better to just say "shitload of cash" and move on. Or have the number memorized.

He did sound out of touch on a sensitive issue. But better than sounding out of touch on every issue...

[El_Kabong]

Good God, it's like arguing with a bowl of pudding.

I'm not going to waste my time with addressing this silliness point by point; I'll take one bogus point among many and be done with it:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Or that they are disgusted and outraged by the fact that these people are on the streets in the first place, taking people's lives and laying waste to the happiness of their familes and loved ones, depriving people of their mates and children of their parents. And if they that disgust and outrage is increased by the belief that what they're seeing is only the tip of the iceberg I think you'd be hard pressed to prove them wrong, although the actual numbers aren't as important as the fact that it's happening in the first place. Why are you guys defending this practice? Do you think it's just peachy that these assholes are getting sprung like they are? Is it a practice you approve of? What's the deal, I can't imagine why you're defending it.

Who, specifically, in this thread has defended the practice of early release for violent offenders, and what form has this defense taken? Names and post numbers, please. All I've seen are people objecting to SA's tortured attempts to trump statistics with stuff he's seen on a TV show. Maybe I've missed something.

After that we can start looking at SA's plan for correcting this problem. I assume he has one, since he's kvetching about it to such a degree.

And then finally, after that maybe we can figure out wt effing f any of this has to do with the national debt.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Or that they are disgusted and outraged by the fact that these people are on the streets in the first place, taking people's lives and laying waste to the happiness of their familes and loved ones, depriving people of their mates and children of their parents.

Being disgusted and outraged is not an excuse for being poorly informed. In fact, being outraged is often a cause of being poorly informed and being poorly informed causes outrage. If you have a problem with sentencing laws, base your objection on their actual flaws and not a bunch of inaccurate assumptions about what's happening based on, say, a sensationalist TV show and commentary that really could've come out of a Republican candidate speech 30 years ago. That's a much better way to solve problems.

the actual numbers aren't as important as the fact that it's happening in the first place.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If something bad happens and it's rare, the fact that it's not prevalent really does matter. Policy changes have to involve a cost-benefit analysis. To this point you've supported your contentions about the criminal justice system as follows: 'I watch a lot of The First 48,' 'everyone I know has been touched by drugs or violent crime in one way or another,' 'nobody feels like violent crime is down,' 'crime statistics may be wrong or not reflect reality,' and finally, 'the statistics don't matter.'

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I was in that age group and knew some of those guys. There weren't that many of them, and they didn't come close to being the menace that street and drug gangs present today, whether in numbers or viciousness.

Let's try a very simple statistic: homicides. In the 1950s, the homicide rate hovered between 4 and 5 per 100,000. In the 2000s, it hovered between 5 and 6 per 100,000. Are you contending that homicides have significantly increased? If so, how do you account for the above statistic?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

...And I get that if it weren't for those goddamned hippies with their long hippie hair and goddamned hippie music all liberalling up the place, we'd still be living in a black and white Leave it to Beaver world and it would be perfect, thankyouverymuch.....

Well, we didn't do it alone. The Hell's Angels and the Communists did their bits as well. But we appreciate the sentiment. Hardly anyone ever actually thanks us.

[gamerunknown]

What Voyager said. I found an article to that effect, but he summarised rather neatly.

Also, I'm reminded of Being There. Ever thought of running for office Starving Artist?

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Let's try a very simple statistic: homicides. In the 1950s, the homicide rate hovered between 4 and 5 per 100,000. In the 2000s, it hovered between 5 and 6 per 100,000. Are you contending that homicides have significantly increased? If so, how do you account for the above statistic?

I'm contending that crime has significantly increased since the dawn of the counterculture era, which ushered in increased criminal activity combined with efforts born of a variety of reasons (mostly allegedly enlightened liberalism, some due to plea-bargaining) to spring prisoners at every opportunity. Though crime overall seems to be down from its peak in the 80's and 90's, it's still way higher than it was. To prove the point I went searching for data from a suitably leftie site that hopefully will be accepted as valid. To wit:

Let’s pull some raw numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and display them by Worst Year, Best Year, 2010.

Murder
1991 – 24,700
1962 – 8,530
2010 – 14,748

Rape
1992 – 109,060
1960 – 17,190
2010 – 84,767

Assault
1993 – 1,135,610
1960 – 154,320
2010 – 778,901

Burglary
1980 – 3,795,200
1960 – 912,100
2010 – 2,159,878

Vehicle Theft
1991 – 1,661,700
1960 – 328,200
2010 – 737,142

Cite

Please note that in every case the "Best Year" occurred in the early sixties.

Then note that , despite having fallen precipitously since its peak, a person is still roughly 172% more likely to be murdered than they were in the good old days - which, as we shall continue to see, are not a figment of my imagination after all.

Next, note that if you are a woman you are 493% more likely to be raped today than in 1960.

Next up is assault, where today you are 504% more likely to be violently attacked physically than you were in 1960.

You are also 236% more likely to have your home broken into and some of your things stolen than you were in 1960.

And you are about 224% more likely to have your car stolen than you were in 1960.

So apart from murder, which has only nearly doubled, the other violent crime rates are the ones coming in around 500% higher! It's the non-violent categories of burglary and car theft that have only increased around 230%.

Now take a look at the two graphs at the top right of this Wiki page. Note how the rate of every single category of violent and property crime skyrockets beginning in the late 1960's, with violent crime peaking in the early 90's and property crime peaking in 1980 and rebounding to almost the same level in 1990.

Now, frankly I have no idea why crime rates have fallen like they have beginning in the 1990's. It might be due to three-strikes laws, mandatory sentencing, the bulk of the bad guys already in jail, who knows? But given the precipitous rise in every category of crime which the American public witnessed from the late sixties through the nineties, combined with rates today which are still roughly 2 to 5 times greater than they were during this country's more civilized and disciplined era, I think the American public's fear of crime is perfectly valid, and, given the information above, I doubt they would be much mollified by present day crime statistics.

[rogerbox]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Then note that , despite having fallen precipitously since its peak, a person is still roughly 172% more likely to be murdered than they were in the good old days - which, as we shall continue to see, are not a figment of my imagination after all.

Next, note that if you are a woman you are 493% more likely to be raped today than in 1960.

Next up is assault, where today you are 504% more likely to be violently attacked physically than you were in 1960.

You are also 236% more likely to have your home broken into and some of your things stolen than you were in 1960.

And you are about 224% more likely to have your car stolen than you were in 1960.

So apart from murder, which has only nearly doubled, the other violent crime rates are the ones coming in around 500% higher! It's the non-violent categories of burglary and car theft that have only increased around 230%.

In 1960 there were 180,671,158 people in the USA, now there are 314,433,000. So all of your X% more likely for crime Y to happen figures you stated are overblown fiction. You're either really, really bad with numbers or you're trying to cook the books to make 2012 sound more dangerous than it is.

[rogerbox]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Then note that , despite having fallen precipitously since its peak, a person is still roughly 172% more likely to be murdered than they were in the good old days - which, as we shall continue to see, are not a figment of my imagination after all.

Someone check my math, but using your own handpicked years we have 1962 with 8,530 murders out of a population I found of 186,537,737 Americans. That is one American murdered out of every 21868

Then we have 2010 with 14,748 murders out of a U.S. Population of 308,745,538. That is one American murdered out of every 20934.

You thought you were making a good case for 1962 being half as murderous as big bad 2010, but simple mathematics reveals that your good old days were actually worse than 2010. The good old days is in fact a complete figment of your imagination (especially since you are white)

[Joey P]

If you guys want to see something funny...that webpage that you've been drawing your numbers from, the one from a few pages back, this one. Has the per capita amounts under the raw data.

[jshore]

As for the ones that have risen significantly even on a per capita basis (rapes and assaults), I conjecture that a significant part of this increase is probably attributable to a lot larger percentage of such crimes being reported nowadays than they were back in 1960.

[steronz]

Originally Posted by jshore

As for the ones that have risen significantly even on a per capita basis (rapes and assaults), I conjecture that a significant part of this increase is probably attributable to a lot larger percentage of such crimes being reported nowadays than they were back in 1960.

Ahh, the good ol' days, when women who got raped were probably asking for it, what with their vaginas and all.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

In 1960 there were 180,671,158 people in the USA, now there are 314,433,000. So all of your X% more likely for crime Y to happen figures you stated are overblown fiction. You're either really, really bad with numbers or you're trying to cook the books to make 2012 sound more dangerous than it is.

Hmm...well, when you're wrong, you're wrong, eh? Looks like I screwed the pooch on that one. I apologize.

At several points in the accompanying article it mentions crime rates indexed per hundred thousand, so, it being late and me freshly arrived home from a friend's birthday party where both beer and bourbon were at various times served, I utterly failed to pick up on the fact that the raw data had not been indexed per hundred thousand, which amusingly enough was my belief at the time. However, even I don't think, in the cold light of day, that there has ever been a time when the U.S. has been experiencing 15,000 murders per 100,000 citizens. Hopefully the message contained in the Wiki crime graphs I linked to still support my underlying thesis, but as I'm posting from an iPod right now I'll have to revisit them later.

Again my apologies, and good catch, rogerbox.

[rogerbox]

Accepted, I've had many misunderstandings during late night postings too.

Considering there are VERY nearly twice as many Americans as in 1960 all the crimes would have to at least double in occurrances just to keep up. Murder did not, and I'm going to assume that rape got reported only a small percentage as often as they do now, because of decreased social stigma (but it's still a problem). In truth we'll never know what the true rate of rape was for those decades.

[gamerunknown]

Also worth noting that many states had marital exemptions for rape. Funnily enough the Soviet Union was among the first countries to revoke them (wiki gives 1922 and 1960 as dates) and North Carolina one of the last US states to do so in 1993. Bit of a conundrum for a social conservative I suppose. Marital rape ought to be peachy and ending it is a feminist intrusion into a sacrament, but without its inclusion in rape figures we may be progressing as a species, despite liberal Hollywood's attempt to irrevocably destroy America.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Hmm...well, when you're wrong, you're wrong, eh? Looks like I screwed the pooch on that one. I apologize.

At several points in the accompanying article it mentions crime rates indexed per hundred thousand, so, it being late and me freshly arrived home from a friend's birthday party where both beer and bourbon were at various times served, I utterly failed to pick up on the fact that the raw data had not been indexed per hundred thousand, which amusingly enough was my belief at the time. However, even I don't think, in the cold light of day, that there has ever been a time when the U.S. has been experiencing 15,000 murders per 100,000 citizens. Hopefully the message contained in the Wiki crime graphs I linked to still support my underlying thesis, but as I'm posting from an iPod right now I'll have to revisit them later.

Again my apologies, and good catch, rogerbox.

Why did you bother, though? I had given you the per capita homicide rate in the post you were responding to.

[rogerbox]

Hey there, how often does an SDMB avowed conservative actually apologize for being factually wrong? Less than 1% of their factual wrongness. I don't feel like hammering away at someone for doing the right thing.