DescentBB

....do you see this sort of 'logic'

It’s called propaganda, or lies if you prefer.

That BS statement is really no different than the way that study on the relationship between numbers of guns vs. police shootings was presented.* (note I’m only referring to the editorial presentation, not the study itself)

This post proves my point that most people can’t seem to see the propaganda from their own side, but have a keen eye…when it comes from the other side.

* They chose to use the word “high” instead of “higher” for dramatic effect (a small change, with enormous affect) because “higher” would have simply been pointing out the obvious. (more guns…more shootings…duh)

Odd chart. Why did it leave out the one-term presidents? It's not like it's hard to normalize to "per year".

The thing that stands out to me about these recent police shootings is that so many have been "execution-style" -- it hasn't been police being shot during a drug raid, but police being shot while filling their car with gasoline. Maybe it just didn't make the news as much during the Reagan administration?

the one term presidents were left out to compare similar points in term(7 years in) which couldn't be made with a one-term President.

reread the thing I said about "normalizing".

they chose the easy route. That's my guess.

Chart doesn't show numbers of execution style cop killings.

you are a day late and dollar short today, aren't you, Woody?

I guess you'll have to elucidate me

Lothar made that point already a day or two ago. Look, NO ONE is or was keeping track of how many cops were shot in crime scenes vs targetted killings, but the number of police deaths IS verifiable. Feel free to run with Scott the Stupid and base opinion upon guesswork, and 'I see this more in the newspaper' than actual facts.

callmeslick wrote:NO ONE is or was keeping track of how many cops were shot in crime scenes vs targetted killings

I would bet that information could be dug out of various databases. But it's probably more work than the person who originally made that meme wanted to put in. And the risk is that it would show the opposite conclusion. Why dig deeper and risk the possibility of finding out you're wrong, when you can look shallow and believe you're right?

I wonder if anyone keeps such statistics, nationwide. At best, it would be a research project level of research. I guess my view of human nature has enough positive to think that the writers weren't hiding a damn thing, but not wishing to spend that sort of time on a FB meme statement.

callmeslick wrote:....do you see this sort of 'logic'

It's amazing they were willing to admit it dropped after Bush took office from Clinton.

look, TB, it is a long-term trend, likely stretching back to late-Nixon days, if one looked into it. Sometimes, folks sell the illusion of gloom and doom and a violent nation or world to foster their own agenda. Both parties, all sides, every day.