Exploding Knife Violence on the streets of London

Statistics are understood, but the findings and release data of the FBI undermine the message being presented by yourself. And since the FBI is the chief law enforcement agency for the entire united states, their organization qualifies as being source data. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the data provided by the FBI is wrong, only the reinterpretations by so-called "researchers" who try and claim that legal firearms ownership is the problem in need of being addressed.

 

It would appear that the only so-called "benefit" that would actually emerge from the approach of legalization and regulation, with regard to the subject of illicit narcotic substances, would be yet one more thing for the united states government to collect a tax from, and generate yet another source of revenue for itself taken from the people.

 

This is just a call for spurious relationship. You do realise that the key is in the capital letter, don't you? Statistics

 

Again: Harm reduction is the benefit. As your own premise admits, prohibition doesn't stop use. It does however waste several tons of money, and cause second and third order effects that are extremely negative (organized crime, incarceration for non-violent offenses, splitting families, decreasing tax revenue just to name a few off the top of my head. See Prohibition of Alcohol for a more complete view).
What I suggest, as demonstrated with prohibition of alcohol, reduces that harm leading to a net gain not because its super positive but because its LESS NEGATIVE.

You're just being intentionally obtuse because you're biased on this issue. Come off it.

 

Perhaps such could be argued as being the case, if it were not understood that the united states government not only will, but actually has, killed individuals on the basis of not paying taxes that government believes it is rightly entitled to.

 

Then what is being stated by yourself is that evidence compiled by law enforcement investigations is insufficient to count as actual evidence?

 

You've been informed about the need to avoid referencing to raw data, given spurious conclusion making, many times. Why do you think criminologists understand that and you don't? Is it another conspiracy?

 

Entirely irrelevant and a childish attempt at deflection.

When did you become such an amatuer?

 

The claim being made by yourself is that criminologist and economists understand the matter better than others. However there has been no actual evidence presented to show that such is indeed the case. Instead everyone present is presented with the notion that the raw data is too complex for the general public to comprehend, and it must instead be interpreted by these so-called "experts" so it can be presented in a manner that can be understood by the public.

 

So researchers who spend most of their time researching crime aren't actually clued up regarding crime?

Post-truthing and anti-intellectualism go hand in hand. We also can factor in the authoritarian personality, given that also engineers a natural hatred for the empirical process.

 

It is being question to determined just what benefit would actually arise from legalization and regulation with regard to illicit narcotic substances. No matter which approach is attempted, there are significant negative consequences to be had that directly harm the public.

Maintaining the so-called "war on drugs" as is currently being waged. The consequences of such are plainly visible for everyone to see from such an approach.

Government stepping back, and allowing individuals to overdose and just leave them where they fall to present a message to the public. The consequences of such are unsanitary conditions and the risk of disease spreading from the bodies of dead addicts.

Illicit narcotic substances being legalized and regulated as with other vice-based goods that have no constructive benefit in existing. The consequences of such are increased widespread abuse of such substances, new and more expansive government agencies with more expansive powers and regulatory authority, taxes being applied to such substances that present the notion of individuals having little value themselves, licensing and fees for producers of such substances, eventual trade wars concerning small and big producers, and underground effort to smuggle such goods from low-tax areas into high-tax areas for profit, just to name a few.

Which categorized "evil" is the lesser to engage in, that possesses the greatest benefit for society overall?

 

Not when they present the message that the legal availability of any commercial good is directly responsible for certain criminal actions being carried out. Nor when they turn their research paper into an advocacy piece for legal restrictions that should be implemented.

 

Again, this is empty whinge. Here's the reality...

Start: Independent researchers find results
End: You don't like the results.

The epic is in how you waste your time justifying hiding from the evidence. Your 'evidence isn't evidence' effort is a classic mind you. Much better than just being reliant on 'the world is against us' blubbering.

 

What's your favorite self-funded research paper.

 

They're not pop songs. You adopt literature review methods and peruse them all. Most are independently researched. Researchers have to disclose all funding information

 

Well then give me some good examples of "independent" research papers on the topic that you're familiar with.

 

I've given dozens. Haven't you noticed?

 

Then whats one more? I'd love to see this independent research paper.

 

Most are independent. Fire up google and get looking. It would be a success if you did!

 

For every 10 street killing of a young person, I'd guess 1 is gang-related, and 9 are terrorist-related.

 

With the EU open border madness, 70% of crime is by immigrants.

So the figures are not based on British nationals, simply highlights where immigration can be a bad thing.

 

You could just say you can't give an example.

 

Make that 'where unrestricted immigration can be a bad thing'? If immigration is controlled to ensure that criminal and anti-social elements are filtered out and rejected with extreme prejudice, and only those who are prepared to work and intend to, and more importantly to assimilate are admitted, immigration can be a good thing.

 

I don't mind controlled immigration but the borders within the EU are open for Europeans to move about, especially the undesirables. Also, an EU country could take in an immigrant from outside the EU, give them a passport and they're free to move about Europe.

Different cultures commit varying levels of crime. British culture is quite reserved but has been infiltrated with lawless immigrants, hence the trend of crime stats. So when I see threads on forums about UK or London crime, it's really an eye roll none story. But it helps to fuel their motive, lol.

 

Good point - and no prize for guessing where they'll all flock to; a country where they'll have no fear of the law, or more specifically, the penal system, and generous welfare support from arrival unto retirement, if they're lucky enough to find a retirement home to go to. We're talking about societal meltdown in this poor broken country of mine, and as soon as a decade's time. And it'll be then that the politicians - those who actually caused that meltdown - will take their money and run to the nearest tax haven.