Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[idb]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas. I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people. They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides. We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem. In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park. Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously. In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards. These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out. The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot. And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up. In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime. Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared. And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here. No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.

What rubbish.
No First World country has more mass shootings.

So you want to export blacks and Hispanics? What do you have in mind?

Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?

 

[2aguy]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas. I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people. They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides. We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem. In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park. Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously. In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards. These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out. The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot. And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up. In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime. Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared. And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here. No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.

What rubbish.
No First World country has more mass shootings.

So you want to export blacks and Hispanics? What do you have in mind?

Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?

By far they are overrepresented in the 8,454 gun murders that happened in 2013...mass shootings are rare, daily gun violence in democrat cities is, well, daily..........mass shootings are not the problem in this country either, they get a lot of media play but the daily murder rate by guns in democrat controlled cities is largely ignored by the media.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

It's a choice really.

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.

London has diversity.

Compare this to New York.
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic, 11% Asian.

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?

 

[2aguy]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas. I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people. They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides. We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem. In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park. Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously. In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards. These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out. The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot. And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up. In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime. Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared. And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here. No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.

What rubbish.
No First World country has more mass shootings.

So you want to export blacks and Hispanics? What do you have in mind?

Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?

okay...here you have a quick find from USA today....hardly definitive but it was quick....900 deaths in 7 years from "mass shootings." Of course we would have to actually look at the mass shootings since the press usually gets it wrong...but taking this at face value......900 divided by 7......128.5 per year....

Mass shootings toll exceeds 900 in past seven years

gun murder rate in 2013....8,454.

So mass shootings vs. daily shootings by criminals with blacks and other minorities commiiting most of them......

 

[kaz]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

I see, so another binary liberal argument, we can lock up everyone who's a threat or no one, there is nothing in the middle. Tell me how you're smarter than Republicans because you aren't all black and white like they are again?

So do you give people who come to your house your life savings or do you shoot them?

What are you talking about?
You're arguing against yourself...certainly not against anything I've said.

Explain to me again how having the highest incarceration rate in the world has made you safer?

Violent crime rates are down dramatically exactly coinciding with increased incarceration rates. So are you a self hating American or just an international hate filled elitist snob? Why the need to be a dick?

 

[kaz]

Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?

Why do you exaggerate 5,000 times every second? Do you know how annoying it is to try to have a conversation with someone who makes every point a ridiculous extreme like you do?

No, they drive up the rates. They do not commit "all...or even most" of crimes, but they do commit a disproportionate number of them. Hispanics driven more by illegal immigration than long term citizens. And how do you get "mass shootings?" What is wrong with you? Can you have a normal conversation where you come back with normal questions instead of saying the distance from your home to the corner market is 12 million miles?

 

[kaz]

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas. I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people. They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides. We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem. In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park. Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously. In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards. These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out. The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot. And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up. In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime. Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared. And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here. No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.

What rubbish.
No First World country has more mass shootings.

So you want to export blacks and Hispanics? What do you have in mind?

Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?

By far they are overrepresented in the 8,454 gun murders that happened in 2013...mass shootings are rare, daily gun violence in democrat cities is, well, daily..........mass shootings are not the problem in this country either, they get a lot of media play but the daily murder rate by guns in democrat controlled cities is largely ignored by the media.

According to IDB, you can't pick "over represented," sorry, they have to be responsible for every shooting or none of them. He only talks in absolute extremes

 

[kaz]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

It's a choice really.

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.

London has diversity.

Compare this to New York.
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic, 11% Asian.

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?

So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal? Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply

 

[kaz]

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas. I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people. They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides. We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem. In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park. Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously. In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards. These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out. The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot. And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up. In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime. Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared. And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here. No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.

What rubbish.
No First World country has more mass shootings.

So you want to export blacks and Hispanics? What do you have in mind?

Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?

okay...here you have a quick find from USA today....hardly definitive but it was quick....900 deaths in 7 years from "mass shootings." Of course we would have to actually look at the mass shootings since the press usually gets it wrong...but taking this at face value......900 divided by 7......128.5 per year....

Mass shootings toll exceeds 900 in past seven years

gun murder rate in 2013....8,454.

So mass shootings vs. daily shootings by criminals with blacks and other minorities commiiting most of them......

So you're saying that none of the mass shootings were committed by a white guy? They were all done by blacks and Hispanics?

Just helping you out there IDB

 

[idb]

So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?


Sent from my tree hut on my day off.

 

[idb]

Huh?


Sent from my tree hut on my day off.

 

[2aguy]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

It's a choice really.

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.

London has diversity.

Compare this to New York.
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic, 11% Asian.

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?

So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?


Sent from my tree hut on my day off.

It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime. We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.

 

[danielpalos]

My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.

...

The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.

The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.

...
Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS

 

[kaz]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

It's a choice really.

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.

London has diversity.

Compare this to New York.
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic, 11% Asian.

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?

So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?


Sent from my tree hut on my day off.

It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime. We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.

So you're saying there are no crimes committed in the United States?

Just helping you out there again, IDB. You are a black and white guy. So to get to know you a little better, are you a genius or retarded? Are you wealthy or do you live in poverty? Do you drive a luxury car or a heap? Is your house a mansion or a leanto? Why is it that everything is one ridiculous extreme to you or the other?

 

[kaz]

My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.

...

The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.

The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.

...
Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS

Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs

 

[frigidweirdo]

My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.

...

The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.

The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.

...
Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS

Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs

I think you'll find he's a troll and it doesn't matter what he says as long as he can get you to go around in circles.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime. We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.

And all the other countries are third world.

Among first world countries the US has a murder rate of more than double, and more than 5 times higher than most first world countries.

 

[kaz]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

It's a choice really.

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.

London has diversity.

Compare this to New York.
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic, 11% Asian.

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?

So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal? Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply

I agree that hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics

 

[jon_berzerk]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

It's a choice really.

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.

London has diversity.

Compare this to New York.
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic, 11% Asian.

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?

So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal? Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply

I agree that hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics

the best chance of making change

real change for the better

is creating your own opportunity

it gives one lots of self worth



-

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

It's a choice really.

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.

London has diversity.

Compare this to New York.
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic, 11% Asian.

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?

So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal? Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply

I agree that hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics

I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.

As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.

But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.