|
Nurture v nature. The following is anecdotal, but the crime stats back it up.
We had a ton of NOLA people dumped on us after Katrina, and the crime rate went through the roof for a while. But, Houston has a lot more in the way of legit opportunity than NOLA ever had (or still has, even with the drastic reduction in their population), and once the people from there realized they could actually get jobs and have normal lives, the crime rate dropped. Yeah, some of it was due to people going to jail, or the local wayward youth showing them that we do crime differently than in NOLA (the Houston criminal is typically a drug dealer, and the drug gangs here are aware that violence is bad for business and that there's enough to go around for everyone), but a vast majority of it was just people actually seeing a real opportunity to break the cycle they were stuck in in New Orleans.
Given a legitimate opportunity, most people are going to do things right. It is only a small percentage of the criminal element that will break the law regardless of other, more legit, opportunities available.
But, the operative phrase is "legitimate opportunity".
National youth crime rates are actually way, way down. As in almost cut in half in some areas in the last 10 years down, despite the economy.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that you can't just ignore problem kids until they drop out anymore because of no child left behind.
When I started 11 years ago, I had kids who were socially promoted who literally never attended schools. You don't see that anymore, and I think it is reflected in the reduction in crime.
A little bit of opportunity goes a long way.
Right. But, in places like Chicago (they have a legit chance at over 1,000 murders this year), Detroit, Cleveland, New Orleans (yeah, even with a much smaller population), the worst parts of L.A., etc, where there is little opportunity, the crime rates are still pretty scary.
There is a lot of money in this country, and we are nickle and dimed with taxes just about everywhere, so there is no excuse (except for government waste and corruption) for anyone not getting a legit shot at a normal life. We just have to make it a priority to actually focus on the problem and do things that are effective, rather than things that make us feel like we're doing enough.
Very few people want to sit on welfare and sponge off the greater population. Yeah, some lazy and shady people do, but they're a very small minority overall. Our problem isn't a lack of funds, it's a lack of focus, a lack of desire to do the right thing (i.e. get rid of waste, unnecessary bureaucracy, and stupid overseas military adventures), and a serious lack of getting our priorities straight.
It's not a bad line of logic, GG. If the logic behind your line of thinking is "but guns cause so many deaths, so they should be limited/banned" than it's perfectly logical to bring up other things that cause even more deaths and what little is done about them to show that if it's truly the number of deaths that are a concern, why doesn't your logic extend to these other things as well?
And they do. Roads have speed limits, drunk driving is illegal.
The conversation isn't about banning guns, but limiting access for people with serious mental illness as determined by a trained and licensed therapists.
We have some limits in place, but they are both poorly written, applied and enforced.
None of us want to fight the strawman "you are trying to ban guns" because none of us (as far as I can tell) are saying that.
What we are all saying is maybe Jared Loughner and Cho should have been on the no sell registry, and we should fix that.
Well, that's part of the discussion. I agree if a person has a mental condition he has to take anti-psychotics for, then no gun for j00.
If we stopped spending money just to keep people's heads above water, and used that money to help them climb out of the cesspool, we'd probably see some very nice benefits in reduced crime, including gun crime.
I absolutely agree. "The social question is also a question of education", as someone put it about a hundred years ago. Everybody who gets a decent education and a chance to get a decent job is less likely to turn criminal, not to mention being dependent on welfare. Of course, not everybody has the same starting chances; upbringing, health and probably a lot of other factors contribute to these differences. There are people born with the proverbial golden spoon in their mouths who turn into heinous criminals, and there are poor people growing up in the worst of conditions who "make it", but overall, these are exceptions. Your background and schooling often is a decisive factor.
|
|
Yeah, they had some FEMA programs, some local programs, and a lot of money was used to help people get some training and other educational opportunities. But that goes back to my earlier point. If we stopped spending money just to keep people's heads above water, and used that money to help them climb out of the cesspool, we'd probably see some very nice benefits in reduced crime, including gun crime.Sure, I agree; I just wondered if sympathy for refugee status was the only factor mitigating against the typical socio-economic discrimination. Then again, if their refugee status got them the aid, I suppose that's a bit of a chicken/egg question.
Yeah, sympathy probably had a lot to do with it. I just wish the same sympathy we had for the hurricane victims would be applied to our poverty problem in general.
It's not a bad line of logic, GG. If the logic behind your line of thinking is "but guns cause so many deaths, so they should be limited/banned" than it's perfectly logical to bring up other things that cause even more deaths and what little is done about them to show that if it's truly the number of deaths that are a concern, why doesn't your logic extend to these other things as well?
And they do. Roads have speed limits, drunk driving is illegal.
The conversation isn't about banning guns, but limiting access for people with serious mental illness as determined by a trained and licensed therapists.
We have some limits in place, but they are both poorly written, applied and enforced.
None of us want to fight the strawman "you are trying to ban guns" because none of us (as far as I can tell) are saying that.
What we are all saying is maybe Jared Loughner and Cho should have been on the no sell registry, and we should fix that.
Well, that's part of the discussion. I agree if a person has a mental condition he has to take anti-psychotics for, then no gun for j00.
I'll go a little further than that, from the example of Holmes (yeah, I said his name). There's currently no mechanism to track the total amount of ammunition so far as I know, but when someone buys a 100 round magazine and 3000-6000 (reports vary) rounds of ammunition, that person should go on a "Hmm, that's interesting" list.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very few people want to sit on welfare and sponge off the greater population. Yeah, some lazy and shady people do, but they're a very small minority overall. Our problem isn't a lack of funds, it's a lack of focus, a lack of desire to do the right thing (i.e. get rid of waste, unnecessary bureaucracy, and stupid overseas military adventures), and a serious lack of getting our priorities straight.
Well, once again, I agree. The lack of focus especially. Those folks who have some say at politics are influenced by those folks who want to make a tidy profit first and foremost. Educating people does not pay off short term. Building prisons the State pays for does. (Yes, I am exaggerating here. But not much.)
|
|
Right. But, in places like Chicago (they have a legit chance at over 1,000 murders this year), Detroit, Cleveland, New Orleans (yeah, even with a much smaller population), the worst parts of L.A., etc, where there is little opportunity, the crime rates are still pretty scary.There is a lot of money in this country, and we are nickle and dimed with taxes just about everywhere, so there is no excuse (except for government waste and corruption) for anyone not getting a legit shot at a normal life. We just have to make it a priority to actually focus on the problem and do things that are effective, rather than things that make us feel like we're doing enough.
Very few people want to sit on welfare and sponge off the greater population. Yeah, some lazy and shady people do, but they're a very small minority overall. Our problem isn't a lack of funds, it's a lack of focus, a lack of desire to do the right thing (i.e. get rid of waste, unnecessary bureaucracy, and stupid overseas military adventures), and a serious lack of getting our priorities straight.
Is it waste or resource allocation? We spend more on defense than anyone, and part of that is because nearly every major weapon system makes sure parts for it are made throughout the country to assure they effect the largest number of politicians if the system is cut.
My personal experience with Government waste is that is usually is the result of patching problems with short term fixes because of the lack of will for long term investment in setting up proper systems that will cost less in the long term.
Ironic since the government is the one place where you can make the proper long term capital investments infrastructure.
But when the goalposts move every election...
As to digging people out of the muck, it isn't a coincidence that we had huge growth after a generation returned from war with access to free education through the GI bill while investing creating jobs with huge infrastructure projects. I know that is why my family got out of West Virginia.
Where did all the Eisenhower's go on the Right?
They became the Democrats.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They became the Democrats.
And all the racist warmongering Bible thumping Southern Democrats became Republicans. Just as Goldwater predicted and was afraid of.
Of course, both parties seem to love sucking Wall Street reproductive parts and bombing brown people, so I guess we really have a one party system now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wallace made it back to the Dems, though. And busing was smashed in Boston by Dems. What did Duke run as? I don't remember.
EDIT: I guess he jumped back and forth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... so I guess we really have a one party system now.
It sure looks like the differences are negligible from over here...
Wait - perhaps this fascism theory has something to it after all...| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They became the Democrats.And all the racist warmongering Bible thumping Southern Democrats became Republicans. Just as Goldwater predicted and was afraid of.
Of course, both parties seem to love sucking Wall Street reproductive parts and bombing brown people, so I guess we really have a one party system now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: At this point we've got 2 branches of the Capitalist party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh--can't stop myself--must not repeat myself over and over again ad nauseam--uh
"In America there is but one party, the Property Party, and it has two right wings."
--Gore Vidal
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... so I guess we really have a one party system now.It sure looks like the differences are negligible from over here...
Wait - perhaps this fascism theory has something to it after all...
It's easier to see when it's happening to you than from a distance, I guess. I may use the term "fascism" loosely (I just use it as a catch all for oppressive governance), but this nation is definitely not living up to the idealistic image we like to have of ourselves as a bastion of freedom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woah. That's a flurry of favoriting. I'm gonna join the love.
Thread has attained resigned apathy.
It's easier to see when it's happening to you than from a distance, I guess. I may use the term "fascism" loosely (I just use it as a catch all for oppressive governance), but this nation is definitely not living up to the idealistic image we like to have of ourselves as a bastion of freedom.... so I guess we really have a one party system now.It sure looks like the differences are negligible from over here...
Wait - perhaps this fascism theory has something to it after all...
No, it is not. Keeping foreigners in a PoW camp and torturing them? Does not sound like a bastion of human rights to me. Attacking and killing enemies in foreign, supposedly allied countries, without prior notification of said countries? Just the kind of allies one would wish for. Going way over the top with security measures after an (admittedly atrocious) terrorist attack, to the point of becoming paranoid about certain ethnic groups? Not sounding like a free society also.
Thinking about it these last few days, the US look to more and more like an empire in decline, trying with force to hold to its former glory.
Thread has attained resigned apathy.Which is too often confused with enlightenment.
Ain't nothing feels "light" about it.
Yes. I do not care if people own explosives.
Unless they target you - then this might change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I do not care if people own explosives.I wish that the gun lobby would be more honest about what it thinks guns are for. I wish people purchased guns specifically for the use they are interested.
Hunting
Home Defense
Personal Defense
Killing Government OfficialsThe government has done a good job of disarming us to a point where it would be hard to fight back against the military if they decided to use them against us. The entire point of gun control in my opinion, is to make it harder and harder for citizens to fight back against if we ever need to.
Just like I believe that the tea party has been tricked into supporting causes that are not in their self interest (libertarian billionaires don't give a crap about you), liberal gun control advocates are being lured by politicians who want to erode our ability to maintain our freedom.
If all you thought guns were for were self defense and hunting, we don't really need very strong weapons. Hell, shotguns and pistols should cover it. Everything else that they want to ban, they want to ban because they are more effective against military personnel.
So as I said before, you support private ownership of actual assault rifles, RPGs, mortars, SAMs, land mines and other bombs (IEDs are the substitute)?
Because that's what you use to fight asymetric wars against modern militaries.
Well, what are we talking about when we say "explosives"? I don't care about fire works and whatnot, but I really don't want to live close to someone who thinks it's fun to get smashed and play with the C-4 he bought down the road at Bomb-Mart{tm}.
|
|
It's easier to see when it's happening to you than from a distance, I guess. I may use the term "fascism" loosely (I just use it as a catch all for oppressive governance), but this nation is definitely not living up to the idealistic image we like to have of ourselves as a bastion of freedom.... so I guess we really have a one party system now.It sure looks like the differences are negligible from over here...
Wait - perhaps this fascism theory has something to it after all...No, it is not. Keeping foreigners in a PoW camp and torturing them? Does not sound like a bastion of human rights to me. Attacking and killing enemies in foreign, supposedly allied countries, without prior notification of said countries? Just the kind of allies one would wish for. Going way over the top with security measures after an (admittedly atrocious) terrorist attack, to the point of becoming paranoid about certain ethnic groups? Not sounding like a free society also.
Thinking about it these last few days, the US look to more and more like an empire in decline, trying with force to hold to its former glory.
Our immigration law is a joke, our government's willingness to violate basic rights laid out in our governing document is a joke, actually, we're pretty much a hypocritical joke when it comes to human rights and freedom.
Our immigration law is a joke, our government's willingness to violate basic rights laid out in our governing document is a joke, actually, we're pretty much a hypocritical joke when it comes to human rights and freedom.It's easier to see when it's happening to you than from a distance, I guess. I may use the term "fascism" loosely (I just use it as a catch all for oppressive governance), but this nation is definitely not living up to the idealistic image we like to have of ourselves as a bastion of freedom.... so I guess we really have a one party system now.It sure looks like the differences are negligible from over here...
Wait - perhaps this fascism theory has something to it after all...No, it is not. Keeping foreigners in a PoW camp and torturing them? Does not sound like a bastion of human rights to me. Attacking and killing enemies in foreign, supposedly allied countries, without prior notification of said countries? Just the kind of allies one would wish for. Going way over the top with security measures after an (admittedly atrocious) terrorist attack, to the point of becoming paranoid about certain ethnic groups? Not sounding like a free society also.
Thinking about it these last few days, the US look to more and more like an empire in decline, trying with force to hold to its former glory.
And I seem to notice a tendency that these rights are only granted to US citizens - others, not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we're pretty much a hypocritical joke when it comes to human rights and freedom.
And have mostly always been so.
"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Oh, how Sammy chuckled.
I'm not apathetic at all. I am a little resigned, though.
Thread has attained resigned apathy.Our nation has attained resigned apathy.Which is how energized minorities of extremists (on both sides) win seats.
No snark, but who in American political office in the last 20 years do you think is/was an extreme leftist?
|
you're trying to deflect the harm that gun violence does too
No, I'm not...
I'm pointing out that we already have laws in place for guns, and that these laws DO work. Are they perfect, no, but just as with the laws and limitations with something like driving drunk, there are going to be people that disregard those laws and do what they want anyway...
The current gun laws are some of the most unforgiving laws on the books, and the stiff penalties they impose do a pretty good job of deterring people from breaking them...
This is backed up by the fact that there are an estimated 250 million gun owners in this country and an estimated 100,000 gun deaths per year. That means that the majority of gun owners are in fact keeping their noses clean...
Further, that estimated 250 million represent the number of LEGAL gun owners. Most gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally (and sure as with everything else in life, there are exceptions)...
My whole point of bringing up drunk driving is to give a side-by-side comparison of how laws and provisions, no matter how stiff, will be broken by a SMALL minority of people whom do not care how many people they hurt of kill...
The law abiding citizen should not have to carry the dead weight of those FEW who cannot play nice and follow the laws...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil Lincoln,
Yes. What I've proposed in the past really does have bearing on this case. While limiting the types of firearms and the clips available wouldn't have averted this tragedy, it certainly would have reduced its scope. As rare as incidents like this are, the cases where someone genuinely needs to fire 100 round of ammo at 2 bullets a second are even rarer. I see phasing such weapons out by heavily regulating their manufacture and sale as a net gain: a few lives saved but at a net cost i consider to be near zero.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only way to clean up the violence is by stomping on civil rights
Krystallnacht for suspected gang members and sympathizers? Maybe some martial law, too? Sieg Heil!
|
|
Evil Lincoln,
Yes. What I've proposed in the past really does have bearing on this case. While limiting the types of firearms and the clips available wouldn't have averted this tragedy, it certainly would have reduced its scope. As rare as incidents like this are, the cases where someone genuinely needs to fire 100 round of ammo at 2 bullets a second are even rarer. I see phasing such weapons out by heavily regulating their manufacture and sale as a net gain: a few lives saved but at a net cost i consider to be near zero.
You still miss the point of the Second Amendment. Doesn't matter if they have cruise missiles and the like, the intent of the amendment was that a well armed population is harder to oppress.
If you so dislike the intent of that amendment, we have a system in place to change the document. I am sick and tired of people going on about how "it's stale and irrelevant, blah blah blah", we've changed it several times to reflect more modern sensibilities, and, if you think, as a nation, our minds have changed on gun ownership, you're more than welcome to try and get it updated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See how you feel about it when President Hitler Gerald Stalin throws your kids and their wives on the buss to Mittelbau-Jersey.Unless they target you - then this might change.
Yes. I do not care if people own explosives.
I hadn't even heard that guy was running; third party candidate?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want weapons that are effective against drones and automated wiretaps, you need computers, not assault rifles. If anyone can stand up to the government now, it's the hackers, not the survivalists. The Second Amendment should guarantee everyone a right to an open connection and an anonymous proxy server.
|
|
I hadn't even heard that guy was running; third party candidate?See how you feel about it when President Hitler Gerald Stalin throws your kids and their wives on the buss to Mittelbau-Jersey.Unless they target you - then this might change.
Yes. I do not care if people own explosives.
It's the real name on Obamney's birth certificate/Bain DBA.
Or something.
|
|
I see phasing such weapons out by heavily regulating their manufacture and sale
How many gaming books do you think are in the United States (and let’s just limit this to Table-Top RPGs)?
Millions? Billions? More?
Now, let’s limit their production and start phasing them out...
Now, that pretty much covers the books in current production (including those on the shelves at book and hobby stores)...
But what about those books that have already been sold?
There's no possible way to determine who bought a book and who didn't...
You could offer some monetary incentive for people to turn them in voluntarily, but there's still going to be none-too-few who won't turn in their books...
You could then impose stiff fines or even jail time to those in possession of them, but again, considering the sheer numbers involved, there will still be hundreds of thousands of books in private possession...
Now, all that may seem sill (because it is)...
But perhaps you have no true idea just how many magazines are floating around in the United States. Or how one can buy them like one buys a gallon of milk...
Perhaps you do not realize, that when one buys a long gun (like an AR-15), that the paperwork stays at the place of purchase for 20 years or until that store goes out of business...
And that there is no "data base" of the sale of long arms...
My point?
You could change the way all of that is handled, by then you are still left with an uncountable number of high capacity magazines and millions of firearms in the hands of people that do not wish to give them up...
This is backed up by the fact that there are an estimated 250 million gun owners in this country and an estimated 100,000 gun deaths per year. That means that the majority of gun owners are in fact keeping their noses clean...Further, that estimated 250 million represent the number of LEGAL gun owners. Most gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally (and sure as with everything else in life, there are exceptions)...
Ok these statistics have been repeated so many times now --by YOU-- and haven't been challenged I find it to be my duty.
The US has 300 million people. What you're suggesting is that 5 of 6 of us have guns. Including children, the elderly, felons, etc. That seems prima facie absurd so I did a bit of checking.
A Wild Article Appears that suggests about 36% of households in the US have guns. And I'm imagining that, in those households, not everyone IN them has their own guns. We're talking about family homes where daddy has guns, or the husband, or a protective grandmother, and no one else necessarily.
So, I don't know what orifice you got the number from, but it's severely inaccurate. But let's say there's 250 million GUNS in the US. Let's say that this survey is correct, and make the enormous leap and say that represents about 40% of the population owning guns. That's like 120 million. Half your figure.
Also, as far as I can tell, the gun death number is closer to 75k/year. And most of those are suicides. There's about 12k gun homicides a year, as of 2004, at least according to that notoriously unreliably source Wikipedia.
Carry on.
|
|
This is backed up by the fact that there are an estimated 250 million gun owners in this country and an estimated 100,000 gun deaths per year. That means that the majority of gun owners are in fact keeping their noses clean...Further, that estimated 250 million represent the number of LEGAL gun owners. Most gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally (and sure as with everything else in life, there are exceptions)...
Ok these statistics have been repeated so many times now --by YOU-- and haven't been challenged I find it to be my duty.
The US has 300 million people. What you're suggesting is that 5 of 6 of us have guns. Including children, the elderly, felons, etc. That seems prima facie absurd so I did a bit of checking.
A Wild Article Appears that suggests about 36% of households in the US have guns. And I'm imagining that, in those households, not everyone IN them has their own guns. We're talking about family homes where daddy has guns, or the husband, or a protective grandmother, and no one else necessarily.
So, I don't know what orifice you got the number from, but it's severely inaccurate. But let's say there's 250 million GUNS in the US. Let's say that this survey is correct, and make the enormous leap and say that represents about 40% of the population owning guns. That's like 120 million. Half your figure.
Also, as far as I can tell, the gun death number is closer to 75k/year. And most of those are suicides. There's about 12k gun homicides a year, as of 2004, at least according to that notoriously unreliably source Wikipedia.
Carry on.
Wikipedia is pretty good for quoting crime stats and objective type stuff. I don't think anyone is going to argue that the quadratic equation posted there is wrong, for instance.
It just gets a little iffy on some of the subjective stuff, but, it's written by human beings, so that's to be expected.
You still miss the point of the Second Amendment. Doesn't matter if they have cruise missiles and the like, the intent of the amendment was that a well armed population is harder to oppress.
If you so dislike the intent of that amendment, we have a system in place to change the document. I am sick and tired of people going on about how "it's stale and irrelevant, blah blah blah", we've changed it several times to reflect more modern sensibilities, and, if you think, as a nation, our minds have changed on gun ownership, you're more than welcome to try and get it updated.
Well, you read the intent of the law from outside sources. And the people who interpret that law are the same ones that heard "alright, we can't keep slaves any more, free all the blacks" and said "what's that? corporations are people? check!"
Even if a considerable majority of citizens were in favor of amending that part of the document, do you really think it would be feasible? We're in legislative gridlock, with neither side budging, and we have a radicalized tea party movement that has grabbed more than a few state houses across the country, making implementation of any progressive amendments impossible.
Wikipedia is pretty good for quoting crime stats and objective type stuff. I don't think anyone is going to argue that the quadratic equation posted there is wrong, for instance.
It just gets a little iffy on some of the...
FWIW that "unreliable" bit was just sarcastic snark.
Did you know...
That posting like this...
Where you trail off every sentence...
And don't use paragraphs...
Might sound like poetry...
When you read it to yourself...
But to the audience...
It's nothing but extra work.
|
|
FWIW that "unreliable" bit was just sarcastic snark.Wikipedia is pretty good for quoting crime stats and objective type stuff. I don't think anyone is going to argue that the quadratic equation posted there is wrong, for instance.
It just gets a little iffy on some of the...
Oh, I know. I'm just one of the bigger "oh, you cited Wiki? Meh" offenders I can think of.