Posted on 07/08/2015 4:51:37 AM PDT by ThomasMore
Could that low crime rate just happen to be a result of VT having the least restrictive gun laws in the US? My next door neighbor when I lived in FL was a retiree from VT, and even though he had owned a .22 revolver up there he couldn't recall VT having any gun laws at all. I kinda doubt that, but IIRC several years ago an NRA, or some other pro-gun org, ranking of states by their LEAST restrictive gun laws put VT at the top of the list.
Yet, better, why not look at the experiment in Connecticut, I believe, back in the 1950s, where a suburban community, built for people (both White & Black) seeking voluntary integration, found that their social aims for relations with neighbors were quite different--not anything to put anyone down, just different social preferences even among those who really thought integration desirable for themselves.
“Where are the low level jobs in suburban communities ?”
How about dey be takin dat job from your college bound kid ?
Heh. This is like arguing over a football game where my team beat yours 24-14. You are trying to argue it didn't because you had more rushing yards, more passing yards, greater time of possession and fewer penalties.
You can't get better than ranking 50th in violent crime, which is the final score.
Why you cling to the Huff-Po/Time Magazine position I don’t know. But the numbers do not add up to Vermont being the safest place nor do other governmental sources.
But you SHULD question why it is that the most liberal of all sources backs that position Even fellow libs don’t buy it. See the Politico heroin link above.
But you go on believing whatever. Having actually lived in that area I know what it is. Having relatives there today I know what it is. Safer than south Central? Absolutely. Safest in America? Nope.
As long as Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, West Los Angeles(Bel Aire), Encino and Tarzana California are integrated I think it is a good idea as everyone should have their Section 8 negro.
I wasn't aware they had taken a position on the matter, since I don't read them. I am using FBI stats from the link I provided upthread and they prove my point.
Waiting tables take some brainpower...
Well now you know. So you might ask why you’re all on the same team ignoring reality.
The FBI numbers say something far different individually.
I remember a couple of weeks ago, there was an article on why Charleston, SC did not explode in violence after the church shooting and if I am not mistaken, it was titled, on the “the God or faith factor”.
Right now I am fighting off as fast as possible, a summertime cold.
FBI crime rates for 2113 - 2114 show a rate of 720 violent crimes in a population of 626,630 for a violent crime rate of 114.1 per 100,000 people. The arithmetic doesn’t work out right for that data, so I don’t know they arrived at the rate of violent crime per 100,000 population because dividing the population number by the listed violent crime number shows it to be 870.2 crimes per 100,000 rather than the 114.1 per 100,000 rate shown on that chart. Obviously the FBI uses a different method of calculating the rate.
The term “blockbusting” might have originated in Chicago, Illinois, where, in order to accelerate the emigration of economically successful racial minority residents to better neighborhoods beyond the ghettos, real estate companies and building developers used agents provocateurs — non-white people hired to deceive the white residents of a neighborhood into believing that black people were moving into the neighborhood, thereby encouraging them to quickly sell (at a loss) and emigrate to generally more racially homogeneous suburbs. Blockbusting was most prevalent on the West Side and South Side of Chicago.
The tactics included hiring black women to be seen pushing baby carriages in white neighborhoods, so encouraging white fear of devalued property; selling a house to a black family in a middle-class white neighborhood to provoke white flight, before the community’s properties decline considerably; selling white neighborhood houses to black families, and afterwards placing real estate agent business cards in the neighbors’ mailboxes; and saturating the neighborhood area with fliers offering quick-cash for houses. Likewise, building developers bought houses and dwelling buildings, and left them unoccupied to make the neighborhood appear abandoned — like a ghetto or a slum — psychological manipulation that usually frightened the remaining white residents into selling at a loss. Blockbusting was very common and very profitable; for example, by 1962, when blockbusting had been practiced for some fifteen years, the city of Chicago had more than 100 real estate companies that had been, on average, “changing” between two to three blocks a week for years.[2]
Tactics used in the blockbusting in the Gresham neighborhood of Chicago included bricks thrown through front windows. Ten bricks through ten front windows were usually more than enough to get all white property owners to sell at sacrifices often surpassing eighty percent of the normal value of the property. [5][citation needed]
But...
that is by choice and a matter of pragmatics, not by any “LAW”.
What would happen is the State decides that Fed-zilla should be responsible for collection of its own taxes?
720 per 626,630 = 114.1
Make that 114.9/100,000, which jives with the FBI number.
Don’t have time to do the math right now, but I’ll take your word on it. I doubt that both you and the FBI fudged the numbers so I’ll concede and agree that I got it wrong yesterday. Thanks for correcting my figures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.