Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.
The only intelligent thing to do is to ensure ease of access to mental healthcare, and to ensure that mental healthcare is affordable to everyone.I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.
The argument that you can control it better if it is legal is not a legitimate argument. Prescription drugs are legal and are highly abused.I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.
And again, are you going to ignore the reasons why criminals behave like this? Or why they become criminals in the first place?
Let's see.... the right says that putting people in prison stops crime, and yet the highest prison population in the US has the highest murder rate and one of the highest crime rates.....
For example St Louis has the highest violent crime rate in the US.
2010-2011 graduation rates for area districts in Missouri
There is one school district, Normandy, with a 57.8% high school graduation rate.
St. Louis Public schools is at 52.6%.
Normandy has a crime rate index of 18, 100 is the safest. I'm assuming 18 isn't great.
Normandy crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout
Violent crime is 6.03 per 100,000. The Missouri average is 4.97, 2 murders, one rape, 8 robbery, 19 assaults, and that's from a population of 5,000 people.
The murder rate in Normandy is 8 times the US average, robbery is 50% higher, assault is higher too. What a surprise.
once again you try to shift the blame.
A person commits a crime because he chooses to commit a crime.
A person doesn't graduate HS because he chooses not to graduate HS
And against excuses for why nothing should ever be done, and it'll boil down to because you can do something, everyone can do it, so therefore do nothing.
I never said nothing should be done
I said those that choose to commit violent crimes should be incarcerated for mandatory and lengthy sentences to be served without parole
You never said nothing should be done, but you ooze nothing should be done every time you reply.
Yes, people who should commit violent crimes should be locked up, however society should also do what it can to prevent people from committing violent crimes, and the US certainly doesn't do this, and states like Louisiana most definitely want to make sure such a thing doesn't happen.
There are reasons some places are more violent that others, don't you think? And a lot of this will depend on how proactive the state government is.
you cannot prevent a person from choosing to break the law. All you can do is act after he breaks the law.
once again you try to shift the blame.
A person commits a crime because he chooses to commit a crime.
A person doesn't graduate HS because he chooses not to graduate HS
And against excuses for why nothing should ever be done, and it'll boil down to because you can do something, everyone can do it, so therefore do nothing.
I never said nothing should be done
I said those that choose to commit violent crimes should be incarcerated for mandatory and lengthy sentences to be served without parole
You never said nothing should be done, but you ooze nothing should be done every time you reply.
Yes, people who should commit violent crimes should be locked up, however society should also do what it can to prevent people from committing violent crimes, and the US certainly doesn't do this, and states like Louisiana most definitely want to make sure such a thing doesn't happen.
There are reasons some places are more violent that others, don't you think? And a lot of this will depend on how proactive the state government is.
you cannot prevent a person from choosing to break the law. All you can do is act after he breaks the law.
Which of course is absolute rubbish designed to make your "do nothing" position look good.
If you can't prevent a person from choosing to break the law, then why are crime rates different in different countries and even in different states?
Great historical world leaders were great because they weren't reactionary. People like Peter the Great went out to solve the problems, people like Nicolas II were reactionary and oversaw the destruction of the Russian monarchy.
The same in the modern era. If you sit back and say nothing can be done until it's been done, then you will fail, as America is failing.
And against excuses for why nothing should ever be done, and it'll boil down to because you can do something, everyone can do it, so therefore do nothing.
I never said nothing should be done
I said those that choose to commit violent crimes should be incarcerated for mandatory and lengthy sentences to be served without parole
You never said nothing should be done, but you ooze nothing should be done every time you reply.
Yes, people who should commit violent crimes should be locked up, however society should also do what it can to prevent people from committing violent crimes, and the US certainly doesn't do this, and states like Louisiana most definitely want to make sure such a thing doesn't happen.
There are reasons some places are more violent that others, don't you think? And a lot of this will depend on how proactive the state government is.
you cannot prevent a person from choosing to break the law. All you can do is act after he breaks the law.
Which of course is absolute rubbish designed to make your "do nothing" position look good.
If you can't prevent a person from choosing to break the law, then why are crime rates different in different countries and even in different states?
Great historical world leaders were great because they weren't reactionary. People like Peter the Great went out to solve the problems, people like Nicolas II were reactionary and oversaw the destruction of the Russian monarchy.
The same in the modern era. If you sit back and say nothing can be done until it's been done, then you will fail, as America is failing.
Crime rates are different because people who choose to break the law don't do as well in society. Those that choose not to break the law have better educations and better jobs and don't have to live in shit hole areas
And like I said before I do not have a do nothing approach. I am all for doing something like locking up violent criminals for very long sentences.
And FYI I'm not failing. I'm doing just fine because I made good choices.
I don't want or need some "leader" telling me how to live my life nor do I have any desire or need to tell other people how to live their lives
I never said nothing should be done
I said those that choose to commit violent crimes should be incarcerated for mandatory and lengthy sentences to be served without parole
You never said nothing should be done, but you ooze nothing should be done every time you reply.
Yes, people who should commit violent crimes should be locked up, however society should also do what it can to prevent people from committing violent crimes, and the US certainly doesn't do this, and states like Louisiana most definitely want to make sure such a thing doesn't happen.
There are reasons some places are more violent that others, don't you think? And a lot of this will depend on how proactive the state government is.
you cannot prevent a person from choosing to break the law. All you can do is act after he breaks the law.
Which of course is absolute rubbish designed to make your "do nothing" position look good.
If you can't prevent a person from choosing to break the law, then why are crime rates different in different countries and even in different states?
Great historical world leaders were great because they weren't reactionary. People like Peter the Great went out to solve the problems, people like Nicolas II were reactionary and oversaw the destruction of the Russian monarchy.
The same in the modern era. If you sit back and say nothing can be done until it's been done, then you will fail, as America is failing.
Crime rates are different because people who choose to break the law don't do as well in society. Those that choose not to break the law have better educations and better jobs and don't have to live in shit hole areas
And like I said before I do not have a do nothing approach. I am all for doing something like locking up violent criminals for very long sentences.
And FYI I'm not failing. I'm doing just fine because I made good choices.
I don't want or need some "leader" telling me how to live my life nor do I have any desire or need to tell other people how to live their lives
Okay, so people who don't break the law are more likely to have a better education, and don't live in shit holes.
So, having shit holes where education is poor, where things that might change those shit holes aren't done, and where kids grow up without much hope, don't see the relevance of schooling because their peers don't have schooling and where they see prejudice and whatnot all around them, isn't going to make anything better, right?
So, surely then something needs to be done. Education for a start. In the US it's poor. Kids get to learn literature when they can't read properly, they get to learn history when they don't give a fuck, and they'lre going to grow up without using any of the knowledge they've learned in school, not much of it is going to help them to progress in the world, and yet the politicians' answer is to carry on doing things as they've been done before because.... because they want these people to stay where the fuck they are.
Look to Europe where many countries, especially Germanic and Scandinavian countries, will try and deal with these problems, and they'll have far less crime, far less problems. They won't always succeed, but in trying there is far more chance that people will not be stuck in the endless violence and hopelessness that exists in the US>
like "we have a gun problem"?Then, obviously, the two of us have a verbage difference. It is quite clear to be at this point we basically agree.You are wrong.
Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.
Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.
What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.
You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.
No, there is not a "gun problem". There is a "violence problem" though.
That's what I just posted. We are a culture of murder and death and our instrument of choice happens to be guns. That's undeniable. If we were a sword culture that worshiped murder and death, then we'd have a "sword problem". Same thing.
To expand the same thought, it's also a masculinity problem. Without Googling into history name me five mass shooters who were female. Hell, name even one.
By that I mean that there is a growing trend of "numbness" towards violence, a "disassociation" from what one is doing, and how it affects, and effects others. (If you are unclear about the difference between affect, and effect, please look them up, it's important).
Again, you're echoing the same thing I noted. Exactly right --- if this 'numbness' were not in place it would be far more difficult to walk into a shopping mall and start picking off random targets. I have no need to "look it up", it's exactly what I've been pointing out since literally the day I joined this site, and before; that this isn't a legislative issue, it's a spiritualistic one. A direct result of our social values.
--- Which I illustrated in pointing out media glorification of violence. That was the whole point of that citation.
As for the "look it up" part, it was not for you (as you state that you have a grasp of the difference), I understand that there is a rather large audience (potentially) for my posts, therefore, I thought it prudent to point out that there is a difference between the words. Far too many use them interchangeably.
A salient observation. Blanket statements and jumping to conclusions are two of my most loathed fallacies.
Your point (in another post) on getting to the "why" of crime is also spot-on. We cannot proceed on anything if we turn a blind eye to the "why". If we approached life like that we'd still be living in caves foraging for nuts and berries. Those who would ignore the 'why' hold us back and let the disease fester.
You never said nothing should be done, but you ooze nothing should be done every time you reply.
Yes, people who should commit violent crimes should be locked up, however society should also do what it can to prevent people from committing violent crimes, and the US certainly doesn't do this, and states like Louisiana most definitely want to make sure such a thing doesn't happen.
There are reasons some places are more violent that others, don't you think? And a lot of this will depend on how proactive the state government is.
you cannot prevent a person from choosing to break the law. All you can do is act after he breaks the law.
Which of course is absolute rubbish designed to make your "do nothing" position look good.
If you can't prevent a person from choosing to break the law, then why are crime rates different in different countries and even in different states?
Great historical world leaders were great because they weren't reactionary. People like Peter the Great went out to solve the problems, people like Nicolas II were reactionary and oversaw the destruction of the Russian monarchy.
The same in the modern era. If you sit back and say nothing can be done until it's been done, then you will fail, as America is failing.
Crime rates are different because people who choose to break the law don't do as well in society. Those that choose not to break the law have better educations and better jobs and don't have to live in shit hole areas
And like I said before I do not have a do nothing approach. I am all for doing something like locking up violent criminals for very long sentences.
And FYI I'm not failing. I'm doing just fine because I made good choices.
I don't want or need some "leader" telling me how to live my life nor do I have any desire or need to tell other people how to live their lives
Okay, so people who don't break the law are more likely to have a better education, and don't live in shit holes.
So, having shit holes where education is poor, where things that might change those shit holes aren't done, and where kids grow up without much hope, don't see the relevance of schooling because their peers don't have schooling and where they see prejudice and whatnot all around them, isn't going to make anything better, right?
So, surely then something needs to be done. Education for a start. In the US it's poor. Kids get to learn literature when they can't read properly, they get to learn history when they don't give a fuck, and they'lre going to grow up without using any of the knowledge they've learned in school, not much of it is going to help them to progress in the world, and yet the politicians' answer is to carry on doing things as they've been done before because.... because they want these people to stay where the fuck they are.
Look to Europe where many countries, especially Germanic and Scandinavian countries, will try and deal with these problems, and they'll have far less crime, far less problems. They won't always succeed, but in trying there is far more chance that people will not be stuck in the endless violence and hopelessness that exists in the US>
You answered your own question and didn't even realize it
"When they don't give a fuck"
There it is. Shit holes are shit holes because the people living in them DON'T GIVE A FUCK. And if they don't I won't
you cannot prevent a person from choosing to break the law. All you can do is act after he breaks the law.
Which of course is absolute rubbish designed to make your "do nothing" position look good.
If you can't prevent a person from choosing to break the law, then why are crime rates different in different countries and even in different states?
Great historical world leaders were great because they weren't reactionary. People like Peter the Great went out to solve the problems, people like Nicolas II were reactionary and oversaw the destruction of the Russian monarchy.
The same in the modern era. If you sit back and say nothing can be done until it's been done, then you will fail, as America is failing.
Crime rates are different because people who choose to break the law don't do as well in society. Those that choose not to break the law have better educations and better jobs and don't have to live in shit hole areas
And like I said before I do not have a do nothing approach. I am all for doing something like locking up violent criminals for very long sentences.
And FYI I'm not failing. I'm doing just fine because I made good choices.
I don't want or need some "leader" telling me how to live my life nor do I have any desire or need to tell other people how to live their lives
Okay, so people who don't break the law are more likely to have a better education, and don't live in shit holes.
So, having shit holes where education is poor, where things that might change those shit holes aren't done, and where kids grow up without much hope, don't see the relevance of schooling because their peers don't have schooling and where they see prejudice and whatnot all around them, isn't going to make anything better, right?
So, surely then something needs to be done. Education for a start. In the US it's poor. Kids get to learn literature when they can't read properly, they get to learn history when they don't give a fuck, and they'lre going to grow up without using any of the knowledge they've learned in school, not much of it is going to help them to progress in the world, and yet the politicians' answer is to carry on doing things as they've been done before because.... because they want these people to stay where the fuck they are.
Look to Europe where many countries, especially Germanic and Scandinavian countries, will try and deal with these problems, and they'll have far less crime, far less problems. They won't always succeed, but in trying there is far more chance that people will not be stuck in the endless violence and hopelessness that exists in the US>
You answered your own question and didn't even realize it
"When they don't give a fuck"
There it is. Shit holes are shit holes because the people living in them DON'T GIVE A FUCK. And if they don't I won't
But the point is that people can give a fuck if certain things happen to them during childhood. You're trying to make out that a baby is born and from that moment on they're heading for the electric chair and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.
I disagree totally. When kids get the support they need, when education is based on their needs, based on turning them into productive adults, then the numbers who end up being total fuckheads will be reduced.
Again the question of why there are more fuckheads in some places than in other places. Usually it's down to how the society around them deals with problems. The worse they are, like Louisiana, the worse the people become, the harder it becomes to reverse course and get things back to being sensible. The more people like you pretend there is nothing that can be done.
That’s because in other countries violence isn’t sanctioned as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.
But then again, in other countries, guns aren't so much of a problem.
And government can be proactive by ensuring everyone have ample access to early, comprehensive mental health services.Guns are not a problem here either
The behavior of criminals is the problem
And again, are you going to ignore the reasons why criminals behave like this? Or why they become criminals in the first place?
Let's see.... the right says that putting people in prison stops crime, and yet the highest prison population in the US has the highest murder rate and one of the highest crime rates.....
For example St Louis has the highest violent crime rate in the US.
2010-2011 graduation rates for area districts in Missouri
There is one school district, Normandy, with a 57.8% high school graduation rate.
St. Louis Public schools is at 52.6%.
Normandy has a crime rate index of 18, 100 is the safest. I'm assuming 18 isn't great.
Normandy crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout
Violent crime is 6.03 per 100,000. The Missouri average is 4.97, 2 murders, one rape, 8 robbery, 19 assaults, and that's from a population of 5,000 people.
The murder rate in Normandy is 8 times the US average, robbery is 50% higher, assault is higher too. What a surprise.
once again you try to shift the blame.
A person commits a crime because he chooses to commit a crime.
A person doesn't graduate HS because he chooses not to graduate HS
And against excuses for why nothing should ever be done, and it'll boil down to because you can do something, everyone can do it, so therefore do nothing.
I never said nothing should be done
I said those that choose to commit violent crimes should be incarcerated for mandatory and lengthy sentences to be served without parole
You never said nothing should be done, but you ooze nothing should be done every time you reply.
Yes, people who should commit violent crimes should be locked up, however society should also do what it can to prevent people from committing violent crimes, and the US certainly doesn't do this, and states like Louisiana most definitely want to make sure such a thing doesn't happen.
There are reasons some places are more violent that others, don't you think? And a lot of this will depend on how proactive the state government is.
like "we have a gun problem"?Then, obviously, the two of us have a verbage difference. It is quite clear to be at this point we basically agree.
What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.
You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.
No, there is not a "gun problem". There is a "violence problem" though.
That's what I just posted. We are a culture of murder and death and our instrument of choice happens to be guns. That's undeniable. If we were a sword culture that worshiped murder and death, then we'd have a "sword problem". Same thing.
To expand the same thought, it's also a masculinity problem. Without Googling into history name me five mass shooters who were female. Hell, name even one.
By that I mean that there is a growing trend of "numbness" towards violence, a "disassociation" from what one is doing, and how it affects, and effects others. (If you are unclear about the difference between affect, and effect, please look them up, it's important).
Again, you're echoing the same thing I noted. Exactly right --- if this 'numbness' were not in place it would be far more difficult to walk into a shopping mall and start picking off random targets. I have no need to "look it up", it's exactly what I've been pointing out since literally the day I joined this site, and before; that this isn't a legislative issue, it's a spiritualistic one. A direct result of our social values.
--- Which I illustrated in pointing out media glorification of violence. That was the whole point of that citation.
As for the "look it up" part, it was not for you (as you state that you have a grasp of the difference), I understand that there is a rather large audience (potentially) for my posts, therefore, I thought it prudent to point out that there is a difference between the words. Far too many use them interchangeably.
A salient observation. Blanket statements and jumping to conclusions are two of my most loathed fallacies.
Your point (in another post) on getting to the "why" of crime is also spot-on. We cannot proceed on anything if we turn a blind eye to the "why". If we approached life like that we'd still be living in caves foraging for nuts and berries. Those who would ignore the 'why' hold us back and let the disease fester.
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 wipes their ass with with the constitution OTHER than the 2nd . Don't think so? Just ask them about state issued voter ID and watch them pull a 180 on people's con rights .
We have a probleM with crazy and criminals getting guns . All guns are born "legal" Gun nut states make it too easy for them to fall into the illega market . So easy that even teenagers can score an illegal gun. So you are right about the supply .
Have you bothered to find out the "why"?
People turn to crime because they are desperate and lack better options.
no one said you had to reply.like "we have a gun problem"?Then, obviously, the two of us have a verbage difference. It is quite clear to be at this point we basically agree.No, there is not a "gun problem". There is a "violence problem" though.
That's what I just posted. We are a culture of murder and death and our instrument of choice happens to be guns. That's undeniable. If we were a sword culture that worshiped murder and death, then we'd have a "sword problem". Same thing.
To expand the same thought, it's also a masculinity problem. Without Googling into history name me five mass shooters who were female. Hell, name even one.
By that I mean that there is a growing trend of "numbness" towards violence, a "disassociation" from what one is doing, and how it affects, and effects others. (If you are unclear about the difference between affect, and effect, please look them up, it's important).
Again, you're echoing the same thing I noted. Exactly right --- if this 'numbness' were not in place it would be far more difficult to walk into a shopping mall and start picking off random targets. I have no need to "look it up", it's exactly what I've been pointing out since literally the day I joined this site, and before; that this isn't a legislative issue, it's a spiritualistic one. A direct result of our social values.
--- Which I illustrated in pointing out media glorification of violence. That was the whole point of that citation.
As for the "look it up" part, it was not for you (as you state that you have a grasp of the difference), I understand that there is a rather large audience (potentially) for my posts, therefore, I thought it prudent to point out that there is a difference between the words. Far too many use them interchangeably.
A salient observation. Blanket statements and jumping to conclusions are two of my most loathed fallacies.
Your point (in another post) on getting to the "why" of crime is also spot-on. We cannot proceed on anything if we turn a blind eye to the "why". If we approached life like that we'd still be living in caves foraging for nuts and berries. Those who would ignore the 'why' hold us back and let the disease fester.
So let me get this straight ------
------ you're actually sitting here in this thread reading my same perspective on exactly the same thing you refuse to read in the other more recent thread, demanding over and over that I repost it all over again ............... and then you're claiming not to know what it is?
This is what I mean by wasting my time.
Which of course is absolute rubbish designed to make your "do nothing" position look good.
If you can't prevent a person from choosing to break the law, then why are crime rates different in different countries and even in different states?
Great historical world leaders were great because they weren't reactionary. People like Peter the Great went out to solve the problems, people like Nicolas II were reactionary and oversaw the destruction of the Russian monarchy.
The same in the modern era. If you sit back and say nothing can be done until it's been done, then you will fail, as America is failing.
Crime rates are different because people who choose to break the law don't do as well in society. Those that choose not to break the law have better educations and better jobs and don't have to live in shit hole areas
And like I said before I do not have a do nothing approach. I am all for doing something like locking up violent criminals for very long sentences.
And FYI I'm not failing. I'm doing just fine because I made good choices.
I don't want or need some "leader" telling me how to live my life nor do I have any desire or need to tell other people how to live their lives
Okay, so people who don't break the law are more likely to have a better education, and don't live in shit holes.
So, having shit holes where education is poor, where things that might change those shit holes aren't done, and where kids grow up without much hope, don't see the relevance of schooling because their peers don't have schooling and where they see prejudice and whatnot all around them, isn't going to make anything better, right?
So, surely then something needs to be done. Education for a start. In the US it's poor. Kids get to learn literature when they can't read properly, they get to learn history when they don't give a fuck, and they'lre going to grow up without using any of the knowledge they've learned in school, not much of it is going to help them to progress in the world, and yet the politicians' answer is to carry on doing things as they've been done before because.... because they want these people to stay where the fuck they are.
Look to Europe where many countries, especially Germanic and Scandinavian countries, will try and deal with these problems, and they'll have far less crime, far less problems. They won't always succeed, but in trying there is far more chance that people will not be stuck in the endless violence and hopelessness that exists in the US>
You answered your own question and didn't even realize it
"When they don't give a fuck"
There it is. Shit holes are shit holes because the people living in them DON'T GIVE A FUCK. And if they don't I won't
But the point is that people can give a fuck if certain things happen to them during childhood. You're trying to make out that a baby is born and from that moment on they're heading for the electric chair and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.
I disagree totally. When kids get the support they need, when education is based on their needs, based on turning them into productive adults, then the numbers who end up being total fuckheads will be reduced.
Again the question of why there are more fuckheads in some places than in other places. Usually it's down to how the society around them deals with problems. The worse they are, like Louisiana, the worse the people become, the harder it becomes to reverse course and get things back to being sensible. The more people like you pretend there is nothing that can be done.
here we go again
"it's not their fault they don't give a fuck"
" it's not their fault if they're fat"
"it's not their fault if they're criminals"
And government can be proactive by ensuring everyone have ample access to early, comprehensive mental health services.And again, are you going to ignore the reasons why criminals behave like this? Or why they become criminals in the first place?
Let's see.... the right says that putting people in prison stops crime, and yet the highest prison population in the US has the highest murder rate and one of the highest crime rates.....
For example St Louis has the highest violent crime rate in the US.
2010-2011 graduation rates for area districts in Missouri
There is one school district, Normandy, with a 57.8% high school graduation rate.
St. Louis Public schools is at 52.6%.
Normandy has a crime rate index of 18, 100 is the safest. I'm assuming 18 isn't great.
Normandy crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout
Violent crime is 6.03 per 100,000. The Missouri average is 4.97, 2 murders, one rape, 8 robbery, 19 assaults, and that's from a population of 5,000 people.
The murder rate in Normandy is 8 times the US average, robbery is 50% higher, assault is higher too. What a surprise.
once again you try to shift the blame.
A person commits a crime because he chooses to commit a crime.
A person doesn't graduate HS because he chooses not to graduate HS
And against excuses for why nothing should ever be done, and it'll boil down to because you can do something, everyone can do it, so therefore do nothing.
I never said nothing should be done
I said those that choose to commit violent crimes should be incarcerated for mandatory and lengthy sentences to be served without parole
You never said nothing should be done, but you ooze nothing should be done every time you reply.
Yes, people who should commit violent crimes should be locked up, however society should also do what it can to prevent people from committing violent crimes, and the US certainly doesn't do this, and states like Louisiana most definitely want to make sure such a thing doesn't happen.
There are reasons some places are more violent that others, don't you think? And a lot of this will depend on how proactive the state government is.
Guns were invented by the Chinese in the 11th Century A.D.I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.
If Nagin or any one or several of his goons had ever shown up at my door they would have all been shot on the spot. And the survivors would have been shot again. Then I would have buried the bodies in the back yard after a nice bonfire with gasoline in the open mass grave.Mayors of New Orleans.....democrats since 1872.
Matter of fact Ray Nagin switched to Democrat so he could get elected It's how it works. Frank Rizzo did the same thing in Philadelphia. Two places I was there to witness.
Guns are not a problem here eitherI've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.
But then again, in other countries, guns aren't so much of a problem.
The behavior of criminals is the problem
And again, are you going to ignore the reasons why criminals behave like this? Or why they become criminals in the first place?
Let's see.... the right says that putting people in prison stops crime, and yet the highest prison population in the US has the highest murder rate and one of the highest crime rates.....
For example St Louis has the highest violent crime rate in the US.
2010-2011 graduation rates for area districts in Missouri
There is one school district, Normandy, with a 57.8% high school graduation rate.
St. Louis Public schools is at 52.6%.
Normandy has a crime rate index of 18, 100 is the safest. I'm assuming 18 isn't great.
Normandy crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout
Violent crime is 6.03 per 100,000. The Missouri average is 4.97, 2 murders, one rape, 8 robbery, 19 assaults, and that's from a population of 5,000 people.
The murder rate in Normandy is 8 times the US average, robbery is 50% higher, assault is higher too. What a surprise.
Hmmmm...the mayor of ST. Louis Missouri....democrat....and there you have the problem....
You do indeed, and the problem is called "Composition Fallacy". It works like this, since you're too stupid to pick this up:
"David Duke is a Klan white supremacist....
"David Duke is a Republican....
"---- therefore all Republicans are Klan white supremacists".
It's always been a fallacy, not to even mention the function of a city mayor is to decide what day your neighborhood gets its trash picked up and when it's time to run the snowplows, which are not exactly political ideologies --- Dumbass.
You could have also mentioned Big Bill Thompson, who was the last Republican mayor of Chicago. He ran a bigot campaign against Anton Cernak which didn't go over real bigly with that city's Slavic and general immigrant community. They were also kind of over Thompson's coddling of Al Capone.
Composition Fallacy that, rhetorical coward.
(/offtopic)
