03-20-2019, 11:36 AM
(03-20-2019, 11:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes and no. 9/11 was an outlier, and an extreme one at that. Including it in the data set would do more to distort the numbers than starting it after. However, it's not a standard time frame for analysis. Looking at yearly, 5-year, and 10-year numbers is good for looking at trends. Using 9/11 as a mark like that is illogical.
Sure, but using that logic the Christchurch shooting was an outlier and should be discounted as well. I do agree that non-arbitrary time frames produce much better data.
Quote:But now we get into my overall point. In the US, right-wing extremism is the larger threat within our borders versus other forms of it. Since there is a global rise in right-wing extremist violence, which is also the case here, then it is the larger threat. Honestly, focusing on these events is much like focusing on mass shootings to talk about gun control. That's not how most firearm deaths occur, and right-wing extremism (or extremism of any ideological sort) isn't how most homicides occur. But these are the things that grab headlines so they get the attention.
Larger threat in comparison to what? If you're referring to Islamic extremism, then in the United States I would agree with you. Even so, there have been several mass casualty events since 9/11 perpetrated by Islamic extremists. If you are talking about Islamic extremism than you couldn't be more wrong when you say that globally right-wing extremism is the bigger threat. But, once again, I have to ask, when they say 92% of ideologically motivated homicides are committed by extreme right wingers I want to know, 92% of what number? Whenever important data like that is omitted it should send up an immediate red flag as it is often omitted because it doesn't fit the portrayed narrative. Again, it's certainly a problem, and it does not appear to be a problem that law enforcement is ignoring. It just doesn't appear to be anything close to the problem that we're being told it is.
