Davin News Server

Remember This Quote The Next Time Kamala Harris Says Crime Is Down

"For those of you unfamiliar with simple math: if you don't prosecute criminals, of course crime is down."

In the US the FBI bases crime stats on convictions. You can have a dead body, but if no one is convicted of killing the 
person it isn't a murder.

Also, when you don't include NYC or LA in crime statistics, along with raising the bar for retail theft to $1000 
dollars also doesn't help paint a clear picture of what's truly going on.

Crime is down because reporting the crimes is down.

Unaccountable politicians are always gaming the crime numbers. NYC changed the definition of rape to make a 25.6% 
increase since 2019 look like a 20.9% decrease, and added a new category of "retail th3ft" to make a 108.9% increase in 
larceny look like only a 33.6% increase.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GX6kOFiX0AAyONg?format=jpg&name=large

This is why it's hard to simply trust the data, because those keeping the records are corrupted. Same thing with Covid 
fatalities, employment numbers, vote counts...

Those in power can and will fudge anything to support their desired narratives and outcomes.

=====

The transition in crime reporting methodologies by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and related law 
enforcement agencies across the United States has undergone significant changes, particularly with the switch to the 
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) from the traditional Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Summary Reporting 
System (SRS). Here's how this has impacted reporting:

Change in Reporting System:
The FBI initiated this transition to collect more granular data on crime incidents, aiming for a comprehensive 
understanding rather than just summary statistics. NIBRS captures detailed data on each crime incident, including 
victim-offender relationships, arrestees' age, and weapon use, which was not as thoroughly detailed in the old system.

Adoption Rate and Challenges:
While the intention was for all agencies to adopt NIBRS by 2021, the transition has been uneven. This led to a period 
where significant portions of the country's crime data were either not reported or reported differently than expected:

Voluntary Participation:
Participation in the UCR program, including NIBRS, is voluntary. Some large departments, including those in major 
cities like New York and Los Angeles, faced delays in transitioning or had not fully adopted NIBRS, leading to gaps in 
national crime statistics.

Data Incompleteness:
This voluntary nature and the transition's complexity resulted in a noticeable drop in the number of agencies 
reporting. For instance, discussions on platforms like X highlighted that nearly a third of American cities might not 
have reported crime statistics in the initial years of this shift.

Impact on Data Continuity and Accuracy:

Break in Data:

There's effectively a break or at least a significant inconsistency in data continuity. This means comparing crime 
statistics pre- and post-2021 might not reflect real changes in crime rates but rather changes in reporting mechanisms.

===============================================================================

The Liberal Argument Outline 

1. Use spun facts:

These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, 
polls or arguments and add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily 
debunked and exposed as lies by going to the original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin. 

Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one 
post to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim 
victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or 
experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the 
liberals. 

2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your 
Source

If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to 
believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is right 
wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty 
source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts 
themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road 
(there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion. Go 
back to the facts. 

3. The Limbaugh Defense:

This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea what 
he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no 
relevance and is an attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the 
reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush, 
LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED. 

4. The Personal Attack:

Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even 
something as innocuous as "I am a chef". 

They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention 
from the original lost argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet 
to be refuted. 

5. Name Calling:

Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, 
they will attempt to draw you out to gain more insight into your personal side. 
Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this. 

6. The Liberal Bat Signal:

When they find out they are unable to engage 
you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic, they 
will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or 
often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number of 
rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on 
a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and 
disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will 
supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and 
personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at 
them. 

Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid point (Dutch 
did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to 
continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial statement of facts 
that established your victory are for entertainment and educational 
purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand the topic remain on 
the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find 
someone else that will engage them on their terms. 

Now, go away, Snowflake.