Guns. I'm just throwing my point of view out there. If I'm wrong then explain it to me.

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah I did it so anyone can.
Unlike you I believe people can accomplish things if they choose.
You think everyone needs to be told what to do and how to live the way you think they should live

and tell me again how many trillions of dollars we have spent on welfare programs and the war on poverty?

The help is out there if people want it

And FYI the poor in this country are no worse off than the poor in any other first world industrialized country

Astonishing Numbers: America's Poor Still Live Better Than Most Of The Rest Of Humanity

Where did I say people can accomplish things? Sure they can. People can, but not everyone can. And if you're in the ghettos then the chances are people aren't going to accomplish things. This isn't what I wish, this is the REALITY of parts of the US.

Again, I ask these questions and get vague answers back. Why does the US have the highest prison population in the first world? Why does it have ghettos worse than any country in the first world? There's something wrong in the US and a lot of people have been sucked in and they can't get out, and many of the people do want to get out, but they can't. They can't because they don't have the education, or they committed crimes when they were younger, and people won't give them the chances they need to do better for themselves. Then there are the ones who have grown used to that way of life and can't change.

This isn't about what I think people can or can't do, this is about what is happening in the US right now and which you ignore every time by saying 'well, I grew up with this kind of mother and I did okay", but yu didn't grow up in a fucking ghetto.

So your goal is to have everyone succeed as you define it.

and what is happening in the US right now is that the poor are no worse off than they would be in most other industrialized countries

No, it's not.

You have different types of goals. One is to reduce the bad statistics and increase the good. Reduce the crime, reduce the gangs, reduce the problems, and try and improve things. There will be people who don't improve, and there will be others who do. The hope is that through successive generations things get better, not worse as is currently happening.

Another is to make society a better place for everyone, not just for the elite, but for all people. Education that works for all the people. A political system that works for all the people. Healthcare that works for all the people. So that the people are running the country, not the elite.

The US has a basement that is full of dirt, slime and rats, much worse than other first world countries. Yes, other first world countries aren't perfect either, but they're BETTER.

Hey, I've been to a lot of First World countries, 3/4 of First world Countries in Europe, and the worst city I've found in Europe for fear was Bucharest, there are cities where you see problems that you think shouldn't happen, and that these countries should be more proactive too, but compared to US cities like DC, which has large areas that are a dump. When Europeans go to US cities they have to be taught how to think in those cities. Going from Canada to the US you suddenly have to go back into careful wary mode because US cities are much more dangerous, and much more horrible places where the ghettos are spilling out into the main parts of the city.

Sorry but no it's not much worse than other countries.

Just because you've been somewhere doesn't mean you know all the ins and outs of their welfare system or the actual situation of their poor.

and our problems are small areas mostly urban in much larger states it's just that some of our states are larger than many European countries

and in case you haven't noticed our crime rates are steadily decreasing while violent crime in Europe is increasing

Sorry, but it is. And this is based on experience.

I don't know your experiences outside of the US, but I'm going to guess they aren't that extensive.

No, just going somewhere doesn't make you an expert of their systems. However I've lived in 5 European countries. I lived in one of the most foreign of German cities where Russians (who were considered ethnic Germans and given German passports even when they couldn't speak German, yet Turks who were third or fourth generation couldn't get them) would hang out drinking vodka from the government purse because they couldn't or wouldn't get jobs.

Yes, some states are larger in size than European states, but no state is anywhere near the size of France, Germany or the UK. The UK is 4/5ths the size of Idaho, and yet has a population that is massively bigger. Can you imagine 65 million people in Idaho?

And yes, a lot of the US's problems are concentrated in larger cities. However there are only like 2 or 3 cities in the US over the size of 250,000 that have murder rates lower than the murder rates of most western European countries.

Violent crime goes up and down in Europe, nothing really special

Here's the UK.

The line at the top shows violent crime going down.
Police recorded crime has gone up recently, but that's to be expected. It's curious that violent crime seems to go down during recessions, it's when you come out of recessions and people go out more, spend more, etc that crime levels increase.

US violent crime dropped from 500 per 100,000 in 2000 to 400 in 2010 and started rising in 2015 from the statistics that I have, which would be in line with what is happening in the UK. I don't see the US having violent crime dropping and Europe's rising.

Sure, if you mess around with the statistics you can probably make them say that, but it would be dishonest. If you understand the statistics you'd see that it's difficult to say what you're trying to make them say.

violent crime is going down here as well so is our murder rate. In fact our murder rate is what it was in 1950 as is the murder rate of the UK and we did it without all the gun bans

Most of our crime stats can be traced to a handful of urban areas that skew the data for the majority of the rest of the country.

The murder rate in very large areas of the country is far lower than the skewed numbers that include the most violent urban areas and indeed is no higher that that of the UK.

you like to say the entire country suffers from high crime rates and it doesn't and many of our cities are just as safe as any other city in the world. Where your European countries have one or two major urban centers because those countries are tiny in comparison we have dozens even hundreds of major and secondary cities.

and I can't help but wonder how long you lived in these countries you say you have. 6 months, a year? And you admit you are not privy to all the welfare laws of those countries but you make these sweeping statements about everything being so much better everywhere else but you still ended up here.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and since people can be controlled you might as well be the one controlling them right?

No, this isn't about ME.

This is about SOCIETY. This is why we have DEMOCRACY, democracy is supposed to be the people having a say in their society, making it better for themselves, rather than having a small rich elite surrounding a monarch and getting rich off of corruption. But, the US has turned into George III's elites and poor. The elite being as corrupt as fuck, controlling the politicians, getting favor from the leaders, and the poor getting fucked over.

You have a revolution and then 250 years later it's all gone, nothing left, the democracy, the freedom from the elite, it's all gone up in smoke.... nice one.

Yeah it's all the fault of those evil rich guys

There are lots of problems, one of the problems is the US lets the rich control way too much. It's a problem in other countries too, the UK also has a Rupert Murdoch problem.

But can you honestly tell me that the rich don't control most of the US?

And you actually think that it's ever been different?

But in reality what any rich person does or doesn't do has very little effect on the average person's life.

Oh, I know it's been different. Way back when before the working classes had the vote, it was very different. Things have changed in the last 100 years massively. The US, however, hasn't changed as much as some other countries. The US is still clinging to the past, other countries have moved forwards.

You really think the entrenched rich in Europe doesn't control their politics?

Man you're naive.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And government can be proactive by ensuring everyone have ample access to early, comprehensive mental health services.

Yes, that's the difference, being pro-active as opposed to the US where views like Skull Pilot's are often heard. The whole "I don't give a fuck, I only care about money, fuck those around me, I don't care" sort of attitude which, I suppose, is the sort of attitude that causes all empires to fall. Money becomes the God.

You can't be proactive for someone else.

And where did I ever say I only care about money?

But I do know that you have a pathological need to control the lives of other people whereas I do nit share that pathology

Yes, you can be proactive for someone else. Peter the Great was proactive for his whole country. That's what great leaders do, they make things better for most people.

I didn't say you did say you only cared about money. I'm basically looking at what you're writing and coming to conclusions.

Pathological need huh?

No, actually I'm a realist. Firstly that the vast majority of people will be controlled. And they can be controlled in a good way or in a bad way. You seem to be willing to let people open to be controlled by bad forces. I'm wary of controlling people, but realize it has to be done. You think you can just descend into anarchy and hey, it'll be okay because that's what libertarianism's all about. But it doesn't work. No one place has ever worked as anarchy, because people will rise up and control.


I also understand that people are thrown into their lives, and the fumble and bumble around and they make lots of mistakes which they regret later on. It's a part of life. However sometimes you get lucky, like being born into a proactive country, and sometimes you get so fucked over, like being poor in the US.

Also I understand that people want to live life with certain things, health, education, jobs, and these are important. They're often more important than freedoms. People like to have freedoms, but freedoms don't put food on the table, don't give them hope for the future.

Where's America's hope right now? It's in politicians who shout the word "hope" as loud as they can and then do nothing about it. The US is losing hope because education sucks (unless you have money), healthcare sucks (unless you have money), jobs suck (unless you have money).... and that's what people end up wanting. They become obsessed with money, money buys you the hope that you need because the govt is so fucking useless in the US that it doesn't offer what people want first and foremost.

and since people can be controlled you might as well be the one controlling them right?

No, this isn't about ME.

This is about SOCIETY. This is why we have DEMOCRACY, democracy is supposed to be the people having a say in their society, making it better for themselves, rather than having a small rich elite surrounding a monarch and getting rich off of corruption. But, the US has turned into George III's elites and poor. The elite being as corrupt as fuck, controlling the politicians, getting favor from the leaders, and the poor getting fucked over.

You have a revolution and then 250 years later it's all gone, nothing left, the democracy, the freedom from the elite, it's all gone up in smoke.... nice one.

And the people who have a say say they want the fucking government to leave them alone but that's not acceptable to you because of your pathological need to control people

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where did I say people can accomplish things? Sure they can. People can, but not everyone can. And if you're in the ghettos then the chances are people aren't going to accomplish things. This isn't what I wish, this is the REALITY of parts of the US.

Again, I ask these questions and get vague answers back. Why does the US have the highest prison population in the first world? Why does it have ghettos worse than any country in the first world? There's something wrong in the US and a lot of people have been sucked in and they can't get out, and many of the people do want to get out, but they can't. They can't because they don't have the education, or they committed crimes when they were younger, and people won't give them the chances they need to do better for themselves. Then there are the ones who have grown used to that way of life and can't change.

This isn't about what I think people can or can't do, this is about what is happening in the US right now and which you ignore every time by saying 'well, I grew up with this kind of mother and I did okay", but yu didn't grow up in a fucking ghetto.

So your goal is to have everyone succeed as you define it.

and what is happening in the US right now is that the poor are no worse off than they would be in most other industrialized countries

No, it's not.

You have different types of goals. One is to reduce the bad statistics and increase the good. Reduce the crime, reduce the gangs, reduce the problems, and try and improve things. There will be people who don't improve, and there will be others who do. The hope is that through successive generations things get better, not worse as is currently happening.

Another is to make society a better place for everyone, not just for the elite, but for all people. Education that works for all the people. A political system that works for all the people. Healthcare that works for all the people. So that the people are running the country, not the elite.

The US has a basement that is full of dirt, slime and rats, much worse than other first world countries. Yes, other first world countries aren't perfect either, but they're BETTER.

Hey, I've been to a lot of First World countries, 3/4 of First world Countries in Europe, and the worst city I've found in Europe for fear was Bucharest, there are cities where you see problems that you think shouldn't happen, and that these countries should be more proactive too, but compared to US cities like DC, which has large areas that are a dump. When Europeans go to US cities they have to be taught how to think in those cities. Going from Canada to the US you suddenly have to go back into careful wary mode because US cities are much more dangerous, and much more horrible places where the ghettos are spilling out into the main parts of the city.

Sorry but no it's not much worse than other countries.

Just because you've been somewhere doesn't mean you know all the ins and outs of their welfare system or the actual situation of their poor.

and our problems are small areas mostly urban in much larger states it's just that some of our states are larger than many European countries

and in case you haven't noticed our crime rates are steadily decreasing while violent crime in Europe is increasing

Sorry, but it is. And this is based on experience.

I don't know your experiences outside of the US, but I'm going to guess they aren't that extensive.

No, just going somewhere doesn't make you an expert of their systems. However I've lived in 5 European countries. I lived in one of the most foreign of German cities where Russians (who were considered ethnic Germans and given German passports even when they couldn't speak German, yet Turks who were third or fourth generation couldn't get them) would hang out drinking vodka from the government purse because they couldn't or wouldn't get jobs.

Yes, some states are larger in size than European states, but no state is anywhere near the size of France, Germany or the UK. The UK is 4/5ths the size of Idaho, and yet has a population that is massively bigger. Can you imagine 65 million people in Idaho?

And yes, a lot of the US's problems are concentrated in larger cities. However there are only like 2 or 3 cities in the US over the size of 250,000 that have murder rates lower than the murder rates of most western European countries.

Violent crime goes up and down in Europe, nothing really special

Here's the UK.

The line at the top shows violent crime going down.
Police recorded crime has gone up recently, but that's to be expected. It's curious that violent crime seems to go down during recessions, it's when you come out of recessions and people go out more, spend more, etc that crime levels increase.

US violent crime dropped from 500 per 100,000 in 2000 to 400 in 2010 and started rising in 2015 from the statistics that I have, which would be in line with what is happening in the UK. I don't see the US having violent crime dropping and Europe's rising.

Sure, if you mess around with the statistics you can probably make them say that, but it would be dishonest. If you understand the statistics you'd see that it's difficult to say what you're trying to make them say.

violent crime is going down here as well so is our murder rate. In fact our murder rate is what it was in 1950 as is the murder rate of the UK and we did it without all the gun bans

Most of our crime stats can be traced to a handful of urban areas that skew the data for the majority of the rest of the country.

The murder rate in very large areas of the country is far lower than the skewed numbers that include the most violent urban areas and indeed is no higher that that of the UK.

you like to say the entire country suffers from high crime rates and it doesn't and many of our cities are just as safe as any other city in the world. Where your European countries have one or two major urban centers because those countries are tiny in comparison we have dozens even hundreds of major and secondary cities.

and I can't help but wonder how long you lived in these countries you say you have. 6 months, a year? And you admit you are not privy to all the welfare laws of those countries but you make these sweeping statements about everything being so much better everywhere else but you still ended up here.

Yes, and what does violent crime going down have to do with this right now?

You say that some parts skew the data for other parts of the country. Sure they do, and so the same thing happens all over the world. So what does this have to do with the argument here?

The point here is EMPATHY. You seem not to give a shit about people who live in inner cities. You seem not to care that you country has cesspits, that there are problems, but you're only concerned about your tiny little corner and everything else is not important.

But the governments are there to represent ALL the people, not just you, or little pockets of nice places. And a person who gets bad cut can get an infection which will go and hurt other parts. The same can happen in the US. Or people who live in cities get caught up in this. A friend of mine in New Orleans showed a video of a brutal robbery on the street she has to walk down at night to get home from work.

Again, this is about making a country a better place, you seem to have no interest in this. Violent crime is going down because of other reasons, but it's still too high. And the social problems that cause a lot of this crime are still there and people are still being born into shitty poverty with massive problems and it's massively difficult to get out.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, this isn't about ME.

This is about SOCIETY. This is why we have DEMOCRACY, democracy is supposed to be the people having a say in their society, making it better for themselves, rather than having a small rich elite surrounding a monarch and getting rich off of corruption. But, the US has turned into George III's elites and poor. The elite being as corrupt as fuck, controlling the politicians, getting favor from the leaders, and the poor getting fucked over.

You have a revolution and then 250 years later it's all gone, nothing left, the democracy, the freedom from the elite, it's all gone up in smoke.... nice one.

Yeah it's all the fault of those evil rich guys

There are lots of problems, one of the problems is the US lets the rich control way too much. It's a problem in other countries too, the UK also has a Rupert Murdoch problem.

But can you honestly tell me that the rich don't control most of the US?

And you actually think that it's ever been different?

But in reality what any rich person does or doesn't do has very little effect on the average person's life.

Oh, I know it's been different. Way back when before the working classes had the vote, it was very different. Things have changed in the last 100 years massively. The US, however, hasn't changed as much as some other countries. The US is still clinging to the past, other countries have moved forwards.

You really think the entrenched rich in Europe doesn't control their politics?

Man you're naive.

I didn't say that. What I said what that it is different.

The UK has First Past the Post system of government. This means it's not that much different from the US, only a Senate is replaced by the House of Lords.

However you look at a country like Germany, and while there are rich controlling things, especially the media etc, the people are better educated, the way people vote (Proportional Representation) means that people are far more likely to represented, the policies of the people, rather than the rich are far more likely to be in force. Hence why Germany is cleaner and safer than the US.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, that's the difference, being pro-active as opposed to the US where views like Skull Pilot's are often heard. The whole "I don't give a fuck, I only care about money, fuck those around me, I don't care" sort of attitude which, I suppose, is the sort of attitude that causes all empires to fall. Money becomes the God.

You can't be proactive for someone else.

And where did I ever say I only care about money?

But I do know that you have a pathological need to control the lives of other people whereas I do nit share that pathology

Yes, you can be proactive for someone else. Peter the Great was proactive for his whole country. That's what great leaders do, they make things better for most people.

I didn't say you did say you only cared about money. I'm basically looking at what you're writing and coming to conclusions.

Pathological need huh?

No, actually I'm a realist. Firstly that the vast majority of people will be controlled. And they can be controlled in a good way or in a bad way. You seem to be willing to let people open to be controlled by bad forces. I'm wary of controlling people, but realize it has to be done. You think you can just descend into anarchy and hey, it'll be okay because that's what libertarianism's all about. But it doesn't work. No one place has ever worked as anarchy, because people will rise up and control.


I also understand that people are thrown into their lives, and the fumble and bumble around and they make lots of mistakes which they regret later on. It's a part of life. However sometimes you get lucky, like being born into a proactive country, and sometimes you get so fucked over, like being poor in the US.

Also I understand that people want to live life with certain things, health, education, jobs, and these are important. They're often more important than freedoms. People like to have freedoms, but freedoms don't put food on the table, don't give them hope for the future.

Where's America's hope right now? It's in politicians who shout the word "hope" as loud as they can and then do nothing about it. The US is losing hope because education sucks (unless you have money), healthcare sucks (unless you have money), jobs suck (unless you have money).... and that's what people end up wanting. They become obsessed with money, money buys you the hope that you need because the govt is so fucking useless in the US that it doesn't offer what people want first and foremost.

and since people can be controlled you might as well be the one controlling them right?

No, this isn't about ME.

This is about SOCIETY. This is why we have DEMOCRACY, democracy is supposed to be the people having a say in their society, making it better for themselves, rather than having a small rich elite surrounding a monarch and getting rich off of corruption. But, the US has turned into George III's elites and poor. The elite being as corrupt as fuck, controlling the politicians, getting favor from the leaders, and the poor getting fucked over.

You have a revolution and then 250 years later it's all gone, nothing left, the democracy, the freedom from the elite, it's all gone up in smoke.... nice one.

And the people who have a say say they want the fucking government to leave them alone but that's not acceptable to you because of your pathological need to control people

It's funny that, because do the people say that? The people keep electing people who don't leave them alone.

In fact there are people who are like "the govt should leave our guns alone, but they should also stop gay marriage" and things like that. How many people actually, genuinely support the govt leaving them alone? Not many. 4.4 million voted libertarian in 2016, 3.28% of the country. That's it, 3.28% of the country wants the govt to leave them alone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So your goal is to have everyone succeed as you define it.

and what is happening in the US right now is that the poor are no worse off than they would be in most other industrialized countries

No, it's not.

You have different types of goals. One is to reduce the bad statistics and increase the good. Reduce the crime, reduce the gangs, reduce the problems, and try and improve things. There will be people who don't improve, and there will be others who do. The hope is that through successive generations things get better, not worse as is currently happening.

Another is to make society a better place for everyone, not just for the elite, but for all people. Education that works for all the people. A political system that works for all the people. Healthcare that works for all the people. So that the people are running the country, not the elite.

The US has a basement that is full of dirt, slime and rats, much worse than other first world countries. Yes, other first world countries aren't perfect either, but they're BETTER.

Hey, I've been to a lot of First World countries, 3/4 of First world Countries in Europe, and the worst city I've found in Europe for fear was Bucharest, there are cities where you see problems that you think shouldn't happen, and that these countries should be more proactive too, but compared to US cities like DC, which has large areas that are a dump. When Europeans go to US cities they have to be taught how to think in those cities. Going from Canada to the US you suddenly have to go back into careful wary mode because US cities are much more dangerous, and much more horrible places where the ghettos are spilling out into the main parts of the city.

Sorry but no it's not much worse than other countries.

Just because you've been somewhere doesn't mean you know all the ins and outs of their welfare system or the actual situation of their poor.

and our problems are small areas mostly urban in much larger states it's just that some of our states are larger than many European countries

and in case you haven't noticed our crime rates are steadily decreasing while violent crime in Europe is increasing

Sorry, but it is. And this is based on experience.

I don't know your experiences outside of the US, but I'm going to guess they aren't that extensive.

No, just going somewhere doesn't make you an expert of their systems. However I've lived in 5 European countries. I lived in one of the most foreign of German cities where Russians (who were considered ethnic Germans and given German passports even when they couldn't speak German, yet Turks who were third or fourth generation couldn't get them) would hang out drinking vodka from the government purse because they couldn't or wouldn't get jobs.

Yes, some states are larger in size than European states, but no state is anywhere near the size of France, Germany or the UK. The UK is 4/5ths the size of Idaho, and yet has a population that is massively bigger. Can you imagine 65 million people in Idaho?

And yes, a lot of the US's problems are concentrated in larger cities. However there are only like 2 or 3 cities in the US over the size of 250,000 that have murder rates lower than the murder rates of most western European countries.

Violent crime goes up and down in Europe, nothing really special

Here's the UK.

The line at the top shows violent crime going down.
Police recorded crime has gone up recently, but that's to be expected. It's curious that violent crime seems to go down during recessions, it's when you come out of recessions and people go out more, spend more, etc that crime levels increase.

US violent crime dropped from 500 per 100,000 in 2000 to 400 in 2010 and started rising in 2015 from the statistics that I have, which would be in line with what is happening in the UK. I don't see the US having violent crime dropping and Europe's rising.

Sure, if you mess around with the statistics you can probably make them say that, but it would be dishonest. If you understand the statistics you'd see that it's difficult to say what you're trying to make them say.

violent crime is going down here as well so is our murder rate. In fact our murder rate is what it was in 1950 as is the murder rate of the UK and we did it without all the gun bans

Most of our crime stats can be traced to a handful of urban areas that skew the data for the majority of the rest of the country.

The murder rate in very large areas of the country is far lower than the skewed numbers that include the most violent urban areas and indeed is no higher that that of the UK.

you like to say the entire country suffers from high crime rates and it doesn't and many of our cities are just as safe as any other city in the world. Where your European countries have one or two major urban centers because those countries are tiny in comparison we have dozens even hundreds of major and secondary cities.

and I can't help but wonder how long you lived in these countries you say you have. 6 months, a year? And you admit you are not privy to all the welfare laws of those countries but you make these sweeping statements about everything being so much better everywhere else but you still ended up here.

Yes, and what does violent crime going down have to do with this right now?

You say that some parts skew the data for other parts of the country. Sure they do, and so the same thing happens all over the world. So what does this have to do with the argument here?

The point here is EMPATHY. You seem not to give a shit about people who live in inner cities. You seem not to care that you country has cesspits, that there are problems, but you're only concerned about your tiny little corner and everything else is not important.

But the governments are there to represent ALL the people, not just you, or little pockets of nice places. And a person who gets bad cut can get an infection which will go and hurt other parts. The same can happen in the US. Or people who live in cities get caught up in this. A friend of mine in New Orleans showed a video of a brutal robbery on the street she has to walk down at night to get home from work.

Again, this is about making a country a better place, you seem to have no interest in this. Violent crime is going down because of other reasons, but it's still too high. And the social problems that cause a lot of this crime are still there and people are still being born into shitty poverty with massive problems and it's massively difficult to get out.

Look up compassion fatigue

We have been spent trillions of both federal and state money trying to prop up inner cities and the poor and sooner or later you just have to come to the conclusion that some people don't want to be helped and that some people choose to be where they are and no amount of money or education or handouts will ever change that

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can't be proactive for someone else.

And where did I ever say I only care about money?

But I do know that you have a pathological need to control the lives of other people whereas I do nit share that pathology

Yes, you can be proactive for someone else. Peter the Great was proactive for his whole country. That's what great leaders do, they make things better for most people.

I didn't say you did say you only cared about money. I'm basically looking at what you're writing and coming to conclusions.

Pathological need huh?

No, actually I'm a realist. Firstly that the vast majority of people will be controlled. And they can be controlled in a good way or in a bad way. You seem to be willing to let people open to be controlled by bad forces. I'm wary of controlling people, but realize it has to be done. You think you can just descend into anarchy and hey, it'll be okay because that's what libertarianism's all about. But it doesn't work. No one place has ever worked as anarchy, because people will rise up and control.


I also understand that people are thrown into their lives, and the fumble and bumble around and they make lots of mistakes which they regret later on. It's a part of life. However sometimes you get lucky, like being born into a proactive country, and sometimes you get so fucked over, like being poor in the US.

Also I understand that people want to live life with certain things, health, education, jobs, and these are important. They're often more important than freedoms. People like to have freedoms, but freedoms don't put food on the table, don't give them hope for the future.

Where's America's hope right now? It's in politicians who shout the word "hope" as loud as they can and then do nothing about it. The US is losing hope because education sucks (unless you have money), healthcare sucks (unless you have money), jobs suck (unless you have money).... and that's what people end up wanting. They become obsessed with money, money buys you the hope that you need because the govt is so fucking useless in the US that it doesn't offer what people want first and foremost.

and since people can be controlled you might as well be the one controlling them right?

No, this isn't about ME.

This is about SOCIETY. This is why we have DEMOCRACY, democracy is supposed to be the people having a say in their society, making it better for themselves, rather than having a small rich elite surrounding a monarch and getting rich off of corruption. But, the US has turned into George III's elites and poor. The elite being as corrupt as fuck, controlling the politicians, getting favor from the leaders, and the poor getting fucked over.

You have a revolution and then 250 years later it's all gone, nothing left, the democracy, the freedom from the elite, it's all gone up in smoke.... nice one.

And the people who have a say say they want the fucking government to leave them alone but that's not acceptable to you because of your pathological need to control people

It's funny that, because do the people say that? The people keep electing people who don't leave them alone.

In fact there are people who are like "the govt should leave our guns alone, but they should also stop gay marriage" and things like that. How many people actually, genuinely support the govt leaving them alone? Not many. 4.4 million voted libertarian in 2016, 3.28% of the country. That's it, 3.28% of the country wants the govt to leave them alone.

Your numbers might be valid if we had 100% voter turnout

BTW we don't

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it's not.

You have different types of goals. One is to reduce the bad statistics and increase the good. Reduce the crime, reduce the gangs, reduce the problems, and try and improve things. There will be people who don't improve, and there will be others who do. The hope is that through successive generations things get better, not worse as is currently happening.

Another is to make society a better place for everyone, not just for the elite, but for all people. Education that works for all the people. A political system that works for all the people. Healthcare that works for all the people. So that the people are running the country, not the elite.

The US has a basement that is full of dirt, slime and rats, much worse than other first world countries. Yes, other first world countries aren't perfect either, but they're BETTER.

Hey, I've been to a lot of First World countries, 3/4 of First world Countries in Europe, and the worst city I've found in Europe for fear was Bucharest, there are cities where you see problems that you think shouldn't happen, and that these countries should be more proactive too, but compared to US cities like DC, which has large areas that are a dump. When Europeans go to US cities they have to be taught how to think in those cities. Going from Canada to the US you suddenly have to go back into careful wary mode because US cities are much more dangerous, and much more horrible places where the ghettos are spilling out into the main parts of the city.

Sorry but no it's not much worse than other countries.

Just because you've been somewhere doesn't mean you know all the ins and outs of their welfare system or the actual situation of their poor.

and our problems are small areas mostly urban in much larger states it's just that some of our states are larger than many European countries

and in case you haven't noticed our crime rates are steadily decreasing while violent crime in Europe is increasing

Sorry, but it is. And this is based on experience.

I don't know your experiences outside of the US, but I'm going to guess they aren't that extensive.

No, just going somewhere doesn't make you an expert of their systems. However I've lived in 5 European countries. I lived in one of the most foreign of German cities where Russians (who were considered ethnic Germans and given German passports even when they couldn't speak German, yet Turks who were third or fourth generation couldn't get them) would hang out drinking vodka from the government purse because they couldn't or wouldn't get jobs.

Yes, some states are larger in size than European states, but no state is anywhere near the size of France, Germany or the UK. The UK is 4/5ths the size of Idaho, and yet has a population that is massively bigger. Can you imagine 65 million people in Idaho?

And yes, a lot of the US's problems are concentrated in larger cities. However there are only like 2 or 3 cities in the US over the size of 250,000 that have murder rates lower than the murder rates of most western European countries.

Violent crime goes up and down in Europe, nothing really special

Here's the UK.

The line at the top shows violent crime going down.
Police recorded crime has gone up recently, but that's to be expected. It's curious that violent crime seems to go down during recessions, it's when you come out of recessions and people go out more, spend more, etc that crime levels increase.

US violent crime dropped from 500 per 100,000 in 2000 to 400 in 2010 and started rising in 2015 from the statistics that I have, which would be in line with what is happening in the UK. I don't see the US having violent crime dropping and Europe's rising.

Sure, if you mess around with the statistics you can probably make them say that, but it would be dishonest. If you understand the statistics you'd see that it's difficult to say what you're trying to make them say.

violent crime is going down here as well so is our murder rate. In fact our murder rate is what it was in 1950 as is the murder rate of the UK and we did it without all the gun bans

Most of our crime stats can be traced to a handful of urban areas that skew the data for the majority of the rest of the country.

The murder rate in very large areas of the country is far lower than the skewed numbers that include the most violent urban areas and indeed is no higher that that of the UK.

you like to say the entire country suffers from high crime rates and it doesn't and many of our cities are just as safe as any other city in the world. Where your European countries have one or two major urban centers because those countries are tiny in comparison we have dozens even hundreds of major and secondary cities.

and I can't help but wonder how long you lived in these countries you say you have. 6 months, a year? And you admit you are not privy to all the welfare laws of those countries but you make these sweeping statements about everything being so much better everywhere else but you still ended up here.

Yes, and what does violent crime going down have to do with this right now?

You say that some parts skew the data for other parts of the country. Sure they do, and so the same thing happens all over the world. So what does this have to do with the argument here?

The point here is EMPATHY. You seem not to give a shit about people who live in inner cities. You seem not to care that you country has cesspits, that there are problems, but you're only concerned about your tiny little corner and everything else is not important.

But the governments are there to represent ALL the people, not just you, or little pockets of nice places. And a person who gets bad cut can get an infection which will go and hurt other parts. The same can happen in the US. Or people who live in cities get caught up in this. A friend of mine in New Orleans showed a video of a brutal robbery on the street she has to walk down at night to get home from work.

Again, this is about making a country a better place, you seem to have no interest in this. Violent crime is going down because of other reasons, but it's still too high. And the social problems that cause a lot of this crime are still there and people are still being born into shitty poverty with massive problems and it's massively difficult to get out.

Look up compassion fatigue

We have been spent trillions of both federal and state money trying to prop up inner cities and the poor and sooner or later you just have to come to the conclusion that some people don't want to be helped and that some people choose to be where they are and no amount of money or education or handouts will ever change that

Oh, yes, I know.

There's a difference between US politics and efficient politics. I'm not stating the US model as an example to the world. It's so outdated it's ridiculous and it's weighing the US down heavily. Hence the reason why I'm calling for Proportional Representation and stating that PR is the only way for the US to get out of the pathetic state its politics is in.

This isn't about money. This is about making the right things happen, rather than the wrong things which is what is happening now.

Don't get me wrong, your mistrust of the US govt and of state govts isn't misplaced. Where I think you're going wrong is not seeing that getting out of the current system could have a massive impact on the country for the good.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, you can be proactive for someone else. Peter the Great was proactive for his whole country. That's what great leaders do, they make things better for most people.

I didn't say you did say you only cared about money. I'm basically looking at what you're writing and coming to conclusions.

Pathological need huh?

No, actually I'm a realist. Firstly that the vast majority of people will be controlled. And they can be controlled in a good way or in a bad way. You seem to be willing to let people open to be controlled by bad forces. I'm wary of controlling people, but realize it has to be done. You think you can just descend into anarchy and hey, it'll be okay because that's what libertarianism's all about. But it doesn't work. No one place has ever worked as anarchy, because people will rise up and control.


I also understand that people are thrown into their lives, and the fumble and bumble around and they make lots of mistakes which they regret later on. It's a part of life. However sometimes you get lucky, like being born into a proactive country, and sometimes you get so fucked over, like being poor in the US.

Also I understand that people want to live life with certain things, health, education, jobs, and these are important. They're often more important than freedoms. People like to have freedoms, but freedoms don't put food on the table, don't give them hope for the future.

Where's America's hope right now? It's in politicians who shout the word "hope" as loud as they can and then do nothing about it. The US is losing hope because education sucks (unless you have money), healthcare sucks (unless you have money), jobs suck (unless you have money).... and that's what people end up wanting. They become obsessed with money, money buys you the hope that you need because the govt is so fucking useless in the US that it doesn't offer what people want first and foremost.

and since people can be controlled you might as well be the one controlling them right?

No, this isn't about ME.

This is about SOCIETY. This is why we have DEMOCRACY, democracy is supposed to be the people having a say in their society, making it better for themselves, rather than having a small rich elite surrounding a monarch and getting rich off of corruption. But, the US has turned into George III's elites and poor. The elite being as corrupt as fuck, controlling the politicians, getting favor from the leaders, and the poor getting fucked over.

You have a revolution and then 250 years later it's all gone, nothing left, the democracy, the freedom from the elite, it's all gone up in smoke.... nice one.

And the people who have a say say they want the fucking government to leave them alone but that's not acceptable to you because of your pathological need to control people

It's funny that, because do the people say that? The people keep electing people who don't leave them alone.

In fact there are people who are like "the govt should leave our guns alone, but they should also stop gay marriage" and things like that. How many people actually, genuinely support the govt leaving them alone? Not many. 4.4 million voted libertarian in 2016, 3.28% of the country. That's it, 3.28% of the country wants the govt to leave them alone.

Your numbers might be valid if we had 100% voter turnout

BTW we don't

Who cares? The people who don't vote decide not to have say. They're silent and there's nothing much that can be done about it. They've chosen to let others decide. So....

 

[grainbely]

Except, that you should consider incorporating the Constitutional aspect and the historical aspects into your reasoning as well.

The left has very little loyalty to the constitution as written. When you tell the left wing..."but the constitution says..." I honestly believe most of them roll their eyes. I think most conservatives know that. That's why I made my argument elsewhere.

The left hate the Constitution, it limits their ability to control people. Liberalism is so popular it has to be forced onto the people via threats, fines, and bans.

Incorrect. Stop making up bullshit. We are allowed to be critical of interpretations of it or the language itself. "The left are evil gay commie baby killers." You soung like a fucking idiot.

Lib please you people loath the Constitution and view it as an outdated document. Thank Christ we have it and use it to keep you freaks from running amok.

Ha you don't know me. Stop projecting your spoon Fed propaganda world view on to me.

 

[grainbely]

Except, that you should consider incorporating the Constitutional aspect and the historical aspects into your reasoning as well.

The left has very little loyalty to the constitution as written. When you tell the left wing "but the constitution says..." I honestly believe most of them roll their eyes. I think most conservatives know that. That's why I made my argument elsewhere.

The right cherry picks the constitution as well. Also, it can be amended. If it becomes clear that the over supply of guns and the childish way with which the less responsible or less honest gun users is a problem then this can change. Pointing to the 2nd amendment isn't a silver bullet argument. There are very few of those.

There is no oversupply of guns.......and not only has crime gone down, gun accident rates have gone down as well...nothing you just posted is even remotely true or accurate...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 15.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You spam this shit like fact but I bet it's not even a causal relationship. Should I take some time and blow holes through your biased crapola?

 

[2aguy]

Except, that you should consider incorporating the Constitutional aspect and the historical aspects into your reasoning as well.

The left has very little loyalty to the constitution as written. When you tell the left wing "but the constitution says..." I honestly believe most of them roll their eyes. I think most conservatives know that. That's why I made my argument elsewhere.

The right cherry picks the constitution as well. Also, it can be amended. If it becomes clear that the over supply of guns and the childish way with which the less responsible or less honest gun users is a problem then this can change. Pointing to the 2nd amendment isn't a silver bullet argument. There are very few of those.

There is no oversupply of guns.......and not only has crime gone down, gun accident rates have gone down as well...nothing you just posted is even remotely true or accurate...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 15.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You spam this shit like fact but I bet it's not even a causal relationship. Should I take some time and blow holes through your biased crapola?

There are more than enough studies that do show it is a causal relationship but besides that.....the primary argument of the anti gun extremists is that more guns = more gun crime......

That is the primary, the sole argument for their push for every single gun law they want.....The underlying tenet of their anti gun religion.

And those numbers show that it is not based in truth, facts or reality......

More guns in more hands does not increase the crime rate, the gun crime rate or the gun murder rate......21 years of actual experience as demonstrated by my link.....

 

[2aguy]

Except, that you should consider incorporating the Constitutional aspect and the historical aspects into your reasoning as well.

The left has very little loyalty to the constitution as written. When you tell the left wing "but the constitution says..." I honestly believe most of them roll their eyes. I think most conservatives know that. That's why I made my argument elsewhere.

The right cherry picks the constitution as well. Also, it can be amended. If it becomes clear that the over supply of guns and the childish way with which the less responsible or less honest gun users is a problem then this can change. Pointing to the 2nd amendment isn't a silver bullet argument. There are very few of those.

There is no oversupply of guns.......and not only has crime gone down, gun accident rates have gone down as well...nothing you just posted is even remotely true or accurate...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 15.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You spam this shit like fact but I bet it's not even a causal relationship. Should I take some time and blow holes through your biased crapola?

Here are a few actual research papers that say you are wrong......Americans carrying guns doesn't do the most crime reduction, the cops do that...but Armed Americans help lower the crime rate....

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

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

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

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

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review

 

[Skull Pilot]

and since people can be controlled you might as well be the one controlling them right?

No, this isn't about ME.

This is about SOCIETY. This is why we have DEMOCRACY, democracy is supposed to be the people having a say in their society, making it better for themselves, rather than having a small rich elite surrounding a monarch and getting rich off of corruption. But, the US has turned into George III's elites and poor. The elite being as corrupt as fuck, controlling the politicians, getting favor from the leaders, and the poor getting fucked over.

You have a revolution and then 250 years later it's all gone, nothing left, the democracy, the freedom from the elite, it's all gone up in smoke.... nice one.

And the people who have a say say they want the fucking government to leave them alone but that's not acceptable to you because of your pathological need to control people

It's funny that, because do the people say that? The people keep electing people who don't leave them alone.

In fact there are people who are like "the govt should leave our guns alone, but they should also stop gay marriage" and things like that. How many people actually, genuinely support the govt leaving them alone? Not many. 4.4 million voted libertarian in 2016, 3.28% of the country. That's it, 3.28% of the country wants the govt to leave them alone.

Your numbers might be valid if we had 100% voter turnout

BTW we don't

Who cares? The people who don't vote decide not to have say. They're silent and there's nothing much that can be done about it. They've chosen to let others decide. So....

What's the point of voting when your only choices are 10 day old shit and 15 day old shit?

 

[oldsoul]

I find it quite interesting that so many people focus so much attention and energy on "proving" one side or the other. The FACT is we have crime. I would dare to say most people would agree we have too much of it. Why can't we just get down to the brass tacks of it, find the real root causes and WORK TOGETHER to solve, or at least minimize the effects of, those root causes?

Let's face the realities here:

• Guns don't cause crime.
• Guns don't kill/hurt people.
• Guns, as with knives, 2X4's, hammers, automobiles, etc., are tools.
• Tools can be used for good (ie. building stuff), or bad(ie. hurting/killing people).
• People hurt/kill people, not properly used tools (with the exception of accidents).

So, why can't we have an adult, rational discussion about why people hurt/kill other people, and what we can do as a society to help people understand/believe they have other, less destructive means to deal with their problems?

I beleive I know why, but I want other people to say what they think first.